Summary

John E. Wallace Toto v. Ensuar — Opinion of the Court (2008)

Thus, if the jury finds that the public employee in a false arrest/false imprisonment claim committed willful misconduct, the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages without regard to the limitations of the verbal threshold. Here, it was error to require plaintiff to vault the verbal threshold in the face of a jury finding that Ensuar's actions constituted willful misconduct. A new trial is necessary for the sole purpose of procuring a jury determination on the issue of proximate cause and damages as to Ensuar; there is no need for a jury to decide the willful misconduct issue anew.
Source: Wikisource

John E. Wallace Toto v. Ensuar — Opinion of the Court (2008)

We do not agree.
The failure to instruct the jury that the good faith defense did not apply to plaintiff's claim for false ar-rest/false imprisonment was clearly erroneous. That erroneous instruction may have influenced the jury in its finding that Schulze did not commit willful misconduct. We conclude that that instruction, coupled with the erroneous charge to the jury that the verbal threshold applies to claims of willful misconduct and false arrest, had the [p151] capacity to taint the entire verdict in favor of Schulze and to produce an unjust result.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature