Steve J. Beverly v. William Howard Morris and E. C. Williams, Chief of the City Police of the City of Jesup, Georgia

Fifth Circuit

Steve J. Beverly v. William Howard Morris and E. C. Williams, Chief of the City Police of the City of Jesup, Georgia

470 F.2d 1356, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6306

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 1972

Docket71-2720

StatusPublished

Cited by17 cases

This text of 470 F.2d 1356 (Steve J. Beverly v. William Howard Morris and E. C. Williams, Chief of the City Police of the City of Jesup, Georgia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Steve J. Beverly v. William Howard Morris and E. C. Williams, Chief of the City Police of the City of Jesup, Georgia, 470 F.2d 1356, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6306 (5th Cir. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

*1357 PER CURIAM:

E. C. Williams, the police chief of Jesup, Georgia, appeals from a jury verdict against him for damages. Plaintiff Beverly was arrested in Jesup, and while in custody, was injured when he was blackjacked by an auxiliary police officer. Beverly sued Williams on the theory that Williams was negligent in failing to train properly the auxiliary officer, to supervise his patrol duties, and to provide a regular police officer on duty the night of the assault. It is not argued on this appeal that the force used by the auxiliary police officer was justified.

Appellant Williams contends that (1) he was entitled to either a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because of insufficiency of the evidence, (2) the court erred in charging the jury on the standard of care required of the police chief in the selection, training, and supervision of auxiliary police officers, and (3) the court did not properly charge the jury regarding the method of impeaching or discrediting a witness.

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s contentions and find no error. (1) Substantial evidence supports the jury verdict which was rendered in response to special interrogatories. This case is not one of vicarious liability founded on the theory of respondeat superior, but is instead a claim founded upon the defendant’s own negligence. The facts presented a jury question. (2) Although portions of the court’s charge as to the requisite standard of care are questionable, the charge does not constitute reversible error when read as a whole, especially in view of the fact that the evidence shows a complete absence of any supervision or training of the auxiliary police officer. (3) The charge concerning impeachment of a witness by a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude was directed to the testimony of one witness only to make clear that a conviction for drunkenness or the fact that the witness had been known to drink were not offenses which could be used for impeachment purposes in accord with the law.

Pursuant to Rule 31(c), F.R.A.P., the appeal of William H. Morris, the auxiliary police officer, is dismissed for lack of prosecution. ■

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*1357 PER CURIAM:

E. C. Williams, the police chief of Jesup, Georgia, appeals from a jury verdict against him for damages. Plaintiff Beverly was arrested in Jesup, and while in custody, was injured when he was blackjacked by an auxiliary police officer. Beverly sued Williams on the theory that Williams was negligent in failing to train properly the auxiliary officer, to supervise his patrol duties, and to provide a regular police officer on duty the night of the assault. It is not argued on this appeal that the force used by the auxiliary police officer was justified.

Appellant Williams contends that (1) he was entitled to either a directed verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict because of insufficiency of the evidence, (2) the court erred in charging the jury on the standard of care required of the police chief in the selection, training, and supervision of auxiliary police officers, and (3) the court did not properly charge the jury regarding the method of impeaching or discrediting a witness.

We have carefully reviewed appellant’s contentions and find no error. (1) Substantial evidence supports the jury verdict which was rendered in response to special interrogatories. This case is not one of vicarious liability founded on the theory of respondeat superior, but is instead a claim founded upon the defendant’s own negligence. The facts presented a jury question. (2) Although portions of the court’s charge as to the requisite standard of care are questionable, the charge does not constitute reversible error when read as a whole, especially in view of the fact that the evidence shows a complete absence of any supervision or training of the auxiliary police officer. (3) The charge concerning impeachment of a witness by a conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude was directed to the testimony of one witness only to make clear that a conviction for drunkenness or the fact that the witness had been known to drink were not offenses which could be used for impeachment purposes in accord with the law.

Pursuant to Rule 31(c), F.R.A.P., the appeal of William H. Morris, the auxiliary police officer, is dismissed for lack of prosecution. ■

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

470 F.2d 1356, 1972 U.S. App. LEXIS 6306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steve-j-beverly-v-william-howard-morris-and-e-c-williams-chief-of-the-ca5-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack