Lakus Brown v. Derrin Carter (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

This is a case which arose out of an altercation resulting in a broken jaw.   The plaintiff, Lakus Brown, brought a five-count complaint against the defendant, Derrin Carter, alleging wilful assault, negligent assault, emotional distress, outrageous conduct resulting in emotional distress, and reckless, wanton violation of plaintiff's rights.   The defendant's Answer denied the claims and alleged a special defense of proportional self defense.

After the close of pleadings the matter was tried to the court at New London on April 5, 2011.   At the trial both parties were well represented by counsel, presented evidence and advanced arguments relating to their respective claims.   There were three witness, the plaintiff and the investigating state police officer for the plaintiff, and the defendant testified in his defense.   The evidence does suggest some activity by the parties in connection with unspecified criminal charges.   No consideration will be given in this civil case to any criminal charges, if any, with regard to either party.

The case turns on the question of credibility.   Neither party distinguished himself in that regard.   The facts show that the plaintiff definitely sustained a broken jaw and loosened tooth.   The plaintiff claims that was the result of a “sucker punch” from the defendant.   The defendant denies punching the plaintiff.

The plaintiff testified he was living with his wife Maxine Brown at 10 Ephraim's Path, on Mashantucket property at the time and place of the alleged incident on November 29, 2006.   However, when he was taken to the hospital that day Pl's Exhibit 3 shows that not only did he give his address as 9 Goldburg Avenue, Norwich but he gave the “person to notify” as Kim O'Brien at the Goldburg Avenue address.   That Goldburg Avenue address was also given to his oral surgeon and the state police.   At the time of the incident Mr. Brown had been “banished” from the Mashantucket tribal property.   At first Mr. Brown testified he was not notified about the banishment, but then when further questioned he indicated his opinion that the claims made in the banishment were not valid.   Mr. Brown also testified that the police did not come in but appeared at the back door.   The police report, however, indicates that Mr. Carter let the police into the front door and that Mr. Brown was intercepted going out the back door by other officers stationed there.

The defendant pled as a special defense that “the defendant's actions were to protect himself from harm imposed by the plaintiff and proportional thereto,” but at the trial he testified that he did not hit the plaintiff.   The court, however, finds that the evidence in that regard favors the plaintiff's explanation that he was struck in the face by the defendant during a discussion as to whether the plaintiff was to leave the property.   No injury is found to have been caused by the actions of the police at the time after the altercation when the plaintiff was put on the ground and subdued by the tribal police.   The court finds the plaintiff has sustained his burden of proof with regard to the first count of the complaint alleging a wilful assault by the defendant.   The second count was withdrawn at trial.   As to the remaining counts the court finds that the plaintiff has not sustained his burden of proof as to emotional distress, outrageous conduct or reckless and wanton conduct.

On the issue of damages the evidence indicates the plaintiff was taken to the hospital, had various tests and examinations which led to having his jaw wired shut in connection with a broken mandible.   He was required to endure that process with all of its manifestations for about six months.   There was conflicting evidence as to the level of pain the plaintiff had.   At least one of the medical reports in evidence suggested that the plaintiff claimed a “high pain tolerance.”   He did suffer moderate pain and discomfort throughout the period from November 29, 2006 until the wires were removed.   He was given pain medications by the hospital and doctors.   His medical expenses attributable to this assault to date total $13,092.42.   There is no claim for lost wages.

The evidence was that the plaintiff has already received $10,000 from the defendant for medical expenses in connection with a restitution order from another proceeding.   The court will reduce the award of economic damages by that amount.

Accordingly, judgment may enter for the plaintiff on the first count of the complaint only.   The court awards $3,092.42 economic damages and $5,000.00 non-economic damages to the plaintiff from the defendant.   No costs are awarded to either party.

Robert C. Leuba, JTR

Leuba, Robert C., J.T.R.