DEFENDANT'S VERDICT - POLICE NEGLIGENCE - EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE - WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM - PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DEFENDANT'S OFFICERS WERE NEGLIGENT IN USING EXCESSIVE FORCE AND SHOOTING DECEDENT DURING FOOT PURSUIT

• Pages: 9-10

Mechanical Engineering expert: Mitchell Garber from

Atlanta, GA. Defendant’s Mechanical Engineering

expert: Erick Knox from Aurora, IL.

Tim and Sherri Scarvelli vs. Leatt Corporation. Case

no. 1:12-cv-00483-PAG; Judge Patricia A. Gaughan,

04-17-14.

Attorney for plaintiff: Peter Perlman in Lexington, KY.

Attorney for plaintiff: Tyler Thompson of Dolt,

Thompson, Shepherd & Kinney, PSC in Louisville, KY.

Attorney for plaintiff: Antonios Tsarouhas of

Perantinides & Nolan Co. LPA in Akron, OH. Attorney

for defendant: Orville Reed of Stark & Knoll in Akron,

OH. Attorney for defendant: John L. Tate of Stites &

Harbison PLLC in Louisville, KY. Attorney for

defendant: Jason Wiegand in Uniontown, OH.

COMMENTARY

This is one of several suits against the defendant respecting its

Leatt-Brace. This is the first case to be tried in the United States.

The device at issue, the Leatt Brace, was created by the company’s

founder, Dr. Chris Leatt approximately 10-years-ago, according to

a company release. The company asserts that the device, which is

intended to be worn with a full-face helmet, is designed to reduce

extreme ranges of neck motion, and create an alternative load

path for forces inflicted during accidents involving unrestrained

motocross, ATV, mountain bike, snowboard, and snowmobile

riders.

DEFENDANT’S VERDICT – POLICE NEGLIGENCE - EXCESSIVE USE OF FORCE –

WRONGFUL DEATH CLAIM – PLAINTIFF ALLEGES THAT DEFENDANT’S OFFICERS WERE

NEGLIGENT IN USING EXCESSIVE FORCE AND SHOOTING DECEDENT DURING FOOT

PURSUIT

Witheld County, CA

In this excessive force matter, the plaintiff alleged

that the defendant’s police officers violated the

decedent’s civil rights and used excessive force

during a foot pursuit of the decedent. which

resulted in the decedent being shot several times.

The decedent died as a result of the incident. The

defendant denied any wrongdoing and

maintained that the decedent failed to comply

with the officers’commands to stop and justified

the officers’use of force.

On July 21, 2012, the defendant’s officers were pa-

trolling an area of the city with a history of criminal

street gang activity, including various weapons and

narcotics violations. At approximately 4 p.m., the offi-

cers drove their unmarked police car into an alley in

the area, and noticed a vehicle parked ahead of

their vehicle, an individual standing on either side of

the vehicle, and someone in the driver’sseat.Theof

-

ficers believed that they may have stumbled up on il-

legal activity and continued southbound in the alley,

intending to initiate a consensual encounter with the

individuals. As the officers drove southbound and

came to a stop, the 25-year-old decedent looked in

the direction of the defendant’sofficersandimmedi

-

ately began to run toward a gate leading form the

alley to an apartment courtyard. The officers initiated

a foot pursuit of the decedent. The decedent was

dressed similar to gang members in this area, and

was holding what appeared to be a large object be-

low his baggy t-shirt in his front waistband area. The

officers shouted at the decedent to “stop,”“get down

on the ground,”and “show me your hands.”The de-

cedent did not stop at any of these requests, and did

not comply with them. The decedent continued to

look back as he ran to see where the officers were in

relation to the decedent. The decedent slowed down

suddenly, and turned toward the defendants. The de-

fendants fired two shots in self-defense when it ap-

peared that the decedent was arming himself with a

gun to shoot at the officers. The first round shot the

decedent in the upper buttock area, and the second

shot struck the decedent along the right side of his

head. The decedent died as a result of the gunshot

wounds.

The plaintiff brought suit against the defendant city,

alleging that its officers used excessive force in viola-

tion of the decedent’s civil rights during the incident.

The plaintiff contended that the officers use of exces-

sive force resulted in the wrongful death of the 25-

year-old decedent, and alleged that the city was lia-

ble for the decedent’sdeath.

The defendant city denied the plaintiff’s allega-

tions.The defendant maintained that the officers use

of deadly force should be evaluated based upon the

totality of the circumstances, and not with hindsight.

The defendant maintained that this area had a his-

tory of stabbings, drive-by shootings, as well as weap-

ons and narcotics transactions. It was the subject of

ATF criminal investigation, and the defendant’s offi-

cers were well aware of the history of criminal activity.

The decedent was concealing his hands, refused to

comply with the defendant’s commands, and then

appeared to be turning on the officers with, what

they believed, was a weapon. The defendant argued

that the officers were justified in using deadly force,

given the circumstances that led up to the shooting

incident.

The matter proceeded to trial over a period of six

days.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury deliberated for

one hour and 52 minutes before returning its verdict

in favor of the defendant ,and against the plaintiff by

a unanimous decision.

SUMMARIES WITH TRIAL ANALYSIS 9

National Jury Verdict Review & Analysis

Subscribe Now