Jimmy Lee Letterman; Annette Fay Letterman, Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Jon Does, individually, and in their official capacities, Defendant Steven Lammers; Noreen Gastineau; Jerry Farnsworth; Bryan Earls, Defendants - Appellants, Marcia Jennings, Defendant Jimmy Lee Letterman; Annette Fay Letterman, Plaintiffs - Appellees
v.
Jon Does, individually, and in their official capacities, Defendant Steven Lammers; Noreen Gastineau; Jerry Farnsworth; Bryan Earls, Defendants - Appellants Marcia Jennings, Defendant
Submitted: April 5, 2017
Appeals
from United States District Court for the Western District of
Missouri - St. Joseph
Before
GRUENDER, MURPHY, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.
GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.
Jimmy
Lee and Annette Fay Letterman brought suit under 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and Missouri tort law against officers of the
Missouri Department of Corrections ("Defendants")
for the death of their son while in custody. Three of the
Defendants previously appealed the district
court's[1] order denying them qualified immunity, and
we affirmed as to two of them. Letterman v. Does,
789 F.3d 856, 863-64 (8th Cir. 2015). Defendants now appeal a
jury verdict in favor of the Lettermans. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
I.
Background
In late
2011, Danial Letterman ("Danial") began to serve a
sentence for a drug-related probation violation at the
Western Reception, Diagnostic, and Correctional Center
("WRDCC") of the Missouri Department of
Corrections. During his sentence, mental health staff placed
Danial on suicide watch and moved him to a secured, padded
room in the Transitional Care Unit ("TCU"). The
facility's close observation policy required officers to
check on Danial every fifteen minutes and record their
observations in a close observation log. If they could not
observe movement, obtain a verbal response, or see him
breathing, the officers were required to report it as a
medical emergency.
Just
before midnight on November 17, 2011, Danial fell twice in
his padded cell. After the first fall, Danial got back up. In
the second fall, Danial hit his head on the doorjamb, causing
a noise loud enough to prompt Officer Steven Lammers, the
officer on duty, to come to the cell to check on him. Lammers
saw Danial on the ground and asked if he needed medical
assistance. Danial did not respond verbally but waved his
hand. Lammers did not obtain medical assistance and noted in
the close observation log that Danial was "good."
Danial remained conscious between ten and twenty minutes
after the fall but did not move from his position on the
floor beside the door.
When
Officer Noreen Gastineau relieved Lammers at 7:30 a.m.,
Danial was still lying on the floor by the door, and Lammers
informed Gastineau that Danial had not moved all night after
falling. During the morning, one of the TCU doctors came to
speak with Danial and knocked on the door of his cell. In
response, Danial grunted and moved his foot and head. Around
9 a.m., medical personnel indicated that Danial needed to be
awoken, and Gastineau kicked the door, yelled at Danial, and
splashed water on his face. In response, Danial moved his
head slightly and fluttered his eyelids. Gastineau contacted
Sergeant Jerry Farnsworth and informed him that Danial had
not moved from his position since the beginning of her shift
and that the cell door needed to be opened so medical
personnel could check Danial's vital signs. Farnsworth
indicated that he could not spare an officer to access the
cell. Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Bryan Earls, the
supervising officer, passed through the TCU on his rounds,
and a nurse requested that Earls open the door so she could
check Danial's vitals. Gastineau informed Earls that
Danial had not moved all day. Earls refused to open the cell,
instead suggesting that they "let sleeping dogs
lie." Around 2:00 p.m., Marcia Jennings, the TCU's
Functional Unit Manager, observed Danial lying in a strange
position, and Gastineau informed her that Danial had not
moved since last night and had not eaten. Jennings did not
report it as a medical emergency; rather, she went to her
office and began making phone calls in an attempt to get
Danial's cell door open. Around 4:00 p.m., a team finally
opened the cell door, and the nurse determined that Danial
required immediate medical attention. Danial was transported
to the hospital, where he died of subdural bleeding caused by
a head injury.
Danial's
parents sued the Defendants for denial of medical care,
personal injuries, and wrongful death under both 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 and Missouri tort law. Three of the Defendants
moved for summary judgment on the basis of qualified
immunity, and the district court denied the motion. This
court affirmed except as to Jennings. Letterman, 789
F.3d at 865. The case proceeded to trial and the jury
rendered a verdict in favor of the Lettermans. For the denial
of medical care claim, the jury awarded $6, 793.29 for
funeral and burial expenses, $100, 000 for pain and
suffering, and $150, 000 for the constitutional violation.
The jury also awarded punitive damages against each defendant
related to the denial of medical care claim. For the wrongful
death claim, the jury awarded $1, 000, 000. Defendants
renewed their request for judgment as a matter of law and
alternatively moved for a new trial, challenging the jury
instructions and several evidentiary rulings. The district
court denied the motions and awarded attorney's fees and
costs to the Lettermans pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
Defendants now appeal.
II.
Discussion
Defendants
raise a number of issues on appeal. First, they contend they
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the pain
and suffering claim. Second, Defendants argue that they are
entitled to a new trial because the jury was not instructed
on official immunity under Missouri law. Defendants also
argue a new trial is warranted because the district court
erred in several evidentiary rulings.
A.
Judgment as a Matter of Law
We
"review the district court's denial of a motion for
judgment as a matter of law de novo, using the same standards
as the district court." Luckert v. Dodge Cty.,
684 F.3d 808, 816 (8th Cir. 2012) (quotation omitted). Thus,
"[w]e review the evidence in the light most favorable to
the non-moving party, drawing all reasonable inferences in
its favor and resolving all factual disputes in its
favor." Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott,
486 F.3d 418, 422 (8th Cir. 2007). The court is not at
liberty to reweigh the evidence "or consider questions
of credibility, " and it must "give great deference
to the jury's verdict." Howard v. Mo. Bone &
Joint Ctr., Inc., 615 F.3d 991, 995 (8th Cir. 2010)
(citations omitted). "Judgment as a matter of law is
appropriate only ...