Case Law Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc.

Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (55) Cited in (2077) Related

Genevieve L. Fraizer, Office of Genevieve L. Frazier, Rome, GA, for Appellants.

Joel G. Pieper, Jessie C. Fontenot, Jr., Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Atlanta, GA, Terry Eugene Williams, Williams, Morris & Waymire, Kristina Hammer Blum, Terry E. Williams, & Associates, P.C., Buford, GA, for Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Before CARNES, FAY and ALARCÓN,* Circuit Judges.

FAY, Circuit Judge:

This action arises out of the death of Melinda Neal Fairbanks following her arrest by deputies of the Whitfield County Sheriff's Office. The administrators of Fairbanks' estate brought a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim along with various state law claims against the deputies in their official and individual capacities. The administrators also asserted a state law wrongful death claim against Taser International, Inc. and DGG Taser and Tactical Supply Company, the manufacturer and distributor, respectively, of the Taser used by the deputies during Fairbanks' arrest.1 The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the deputies and the Taser defendants on all claims. We affirm.

I. Facts

At approximately 8:00 a.m., Melinda Neal Fairbanks (Melinda) smoked methamphetamine with her husband, John Fairbanks.2 Around 10:00 a.m., the couple drove to Melinda's sister's house to borrow a trailer in order to collect scrap metal and attempt to sell it. After attaching the trailer, Melinda's sister, Sonya Pamela Neal, accompanied the couple to rental property owned by John's mother, Plaintiff Ruby Mann, where all three began to load scrap metal.

Around 2:00 p.m., Melinda became agitated and delusional. She began arguing with her husband, whose attempts to placate her were unsuccessful. After the argument, Melinda entered a neighboring house belonging to Mr. and Mrs. Philips. Asserting that the home belonged to her, Melinda refused to leave. At 2:43 p.m., Melinda called 911 from the home, claiming that Mr. and Mrs. Philips were in her home and had stolen her things.

Melinda then began ransacking the house, throwing household items onto the front lawn and doing extensive damage to several rooms. At this point, Mrs. Philips also called the police.3 When informed that the police had been called, John fled the scene for fear of being arrested for smoking methamphetamine that morning. Sonya Pamela Neal remained on the scene and tried to convince Melinda to come out of the house.

Responding to the call, Deputies Parker, Giles and Griffin from the Whitfield County Sheriff's Office arrived at 2:56 p.m. The deputies arrived to find Melinda wandering in the backyard and screaming that someone had stolen her things. Specifically, Melinda spoke of the demons and devils who had stolen her treasure. Plaintiffs describe Melinda's agitated state as a case of "excited delirium."4 Deputy Griffin recognized Melinda from a previous arrest for drugs and knew that she was a methamphetamine user.

Initially, Melinda cooperated with the deputies. She complied when the deputies told her she was under arrest and asked her to put her arms behind her back. However, when the deputies attempted to handcuff Melinda, she became combative. Melinda began screaming and attempted to kick and "shin scrape" the deputies. She also attempted to head butt the deputies, all the while screaming that someone was trying to "steal her dope."

After the deputies handcuffed Melinda, she continued to resist the deputies as they escorted her to the patrol car. At this point, Sonya Pamela Neal told Deputy Parker that Melinda had mental problems and had stopped taking her medication and needed help. Soon after, Plaintiff Ruby Mann told Deputy Parker that Melinda was sick and needed to go the hospital instead of jail. Both Neal and Mann were told to go back inside the house.

Due to her combative nature, the deputies placed Melinda into the squad car without searching her person. As Melinda was a large woman, the deputies decided to link two sets of handcuffs together to double the length in an effort to make her more comfortable. The set of interlinked handcuffs provided a greater range of motion, which allowed Melinda to reach her pockets. While in the back of the patrol car, Melinda began to dig into her pockets. This movement prompted the deputies to remove her from the patrol car in order to search for weapons or contraband.

Deputies took Melinda out of the back seat and walked her around to the rear of the car. Melinda shouted that they were attempting to plant evidence on her and resisted their efforts. She began slamming her head against the trunk of the car and flailing her body in an attempt to hit, kick, head butt and spit on the deputies.

After the preliminary search, the deputies attempted to place Melinda back into the patrol car. She refused to comply, using her legs to brace herself outside the car. The deputies eventually placed Melinda in the back of the patrol car, where she began to kick uncontrollably. She kicked so forcefully that when the deputies opened the other rear door in an effort to pull her in, she propelled herself out of the open door of the squad car, landing on her head and neck. Since Melinda had landed on her head, Deputy Griffin called Emergency Medical Services (EMS) staffed by Hamilton Healthcare Services as a precautionary measure at 3:19 p.m., stating that Melinda was acting "crazy," and requesting a medical consult.

Melinda continued to kick and fight with the deputies, such that they could only pin her down and wait for backup to arrive.5 Lieutenant Grant, an officer with the Varnell Police Department, arrived with leg shackles and placed them on Melinda in an attempt to minimize her kicking. After the shackles were put on, Deputies Giles, Griffin and Parker assisted Lt. Grant in placing Melinda back into the patrol car.

Despite the leg shackles, Melinda continued to kick uncontrollably. Melinda eventually kicked the rear driver's side window out of the patrol car, shattering the glass and bending the steel door frame. Deputy Burge instructed her to stop kicking the badly damaged door, but Melinda refused and continued kicking and slamming her head up against the opposite door.

After issuing this warning to no avail, Deputy Burge discharged his Taser on Melinda three times at approximately 3:35 p.m. The Taser did not have the intended effect and Melinda continued her aggressive resistance. The first discharge momentarily curbed Melinda's behavior. She tightened up and ceased kicking briefly. However, she soon resumed her combative behavior. The second and third discharge had no effect, leading the deputies to question whether the device was working properly. The deputies contend one of the Taser leads came loose while Melinda struggled, likely preventing the Taser from working. Melinda suffered second degree burns to her left breast and injuries to the back of her earlobes consistent with the use of a Taser.

At approximately 3:44 p.m., EMS personnel arrived on the scene, but because of her combative nature, they were unable to examine Melinda. They concluded that she was not in any immediate medical distress since she was talking, breathing and responding. Other than having some scrapes on her arm and being dirty and sweaty, Melinda did not appear injured to the deputies or the EMS personnel. The deputies maintain that they believed that the EMS personnel had medically cleared Melinda and she was approved to go to jail. The EMS personnel maintain that they believed Melinda would be transported to the hospital for further evaluation. No explicit orders were given by either the deputies or the EMS personnel.

At approximately 4:00 p.m., the EMS personnel left and Deputy Giles transported Melinda to jail. Melinda continued kicking and screaming during transport. However, approximately thirty seconds prior to their arrival at jail, she stopped kicking and screaming. Deputy Giles reached the jail at approximately 4:10 p.m., and unloaded Melinda, who was unresponsive with labored breathing.

Melinda was attended to by jailers who noted she was ashen and had cuts and bruises on her body. The jailers diagnosed possible heat stroke and took action to cool her down by applying cold compresses. Although the jailers did not believe that Melinda was in danger of dying, her unresponsive state prompted them to call EMS. This was at 4:29 p.m.

EMS personnel arrived at the jail at 4:35 p.m., and transported Melinda to the emergency room, arriving at 5:01 p.m. While at the hospital, Melinda suffered a cardiac arrest at 5:06 p.m., never recovering. Dr. William Oliver of the Georgia State Crime Laboratory conducted an autopsy of Melinda on behalf of the Georgia Bureau of Investigation. Dr. Oliver concluded that the cause of Melinda's death was malignant hyperthermia—specifically, a body temperature in excess of 107 degrees Fahrenheit.6

II. Proceedings Below

The plaintiffs are the administrators of Melinda's estate, the guardians of Melinda's two minor children and Melinda's surviving spouse, John Fairbanks (Plaintiffs). Plaintiffs brought 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging excessive force, inadequate medical treatment, false arrest and failure to...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida – 2016
Grimage v. Hilliard
"...a serious medical need is determined by whether a delay in treating the need worsens the condition." Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994)). Defendants dispute the fact that Plaintif..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida – 2021
Fla. Carry, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
"...to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiff's injury." Sutherland , 416 F. App'x at 49 (quoting Mann, 588 F.3d at 1306–07 ). "A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama – 2019
Riggins v. Stewart
"...an officer is an agent." Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843, 854 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) ("A claim asserted against an individual in his or her officialcapacity is, in reality, a suit against the entity that..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia – 2013
Keele v. Glynn Cnty.
"...against them. An underlyingsubstantive claim is a prerequisite to any request for punitive damages. Accord Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1304 (11th Cir.2009) (“A punitive damages claim is derivative of a plaintiff's tort claim, and where a court has dismissed a plaintiff's und..."
Document | Supreme Court of Kentucky – 2013
Ordway v. Commonwealth
"...in effect, negates a finding of bad faith, the missing instruction should not be given. Id. at 791 (citing Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir.2009)).17 Here, the disappearance of the evidence appeared to result from negligence arising out of the consolidation of the ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
4 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 93 Núm. 3, May 2019 – 2019
To the "Victim" Go the Spoils: The Evolution and Operation of Spoliation of Evidence Law in Florida Product Liability Cases.
"...is not enough.). See also Snell v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 WL 11822753, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2014) (citing Mann v. Taser Intl, Inc., 588 F. 3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that "a finding of 'bad faith' is a prerequisite to a court's imposition of sanctions for spoliation of e..."
Document | Núm. 52, March 2012 – 2012
Part two: case summaries by major topic: part II.
"...they did not do everything they could or planned to do. (Lehigh County. Pennsylvania, and PrimeCare Medical, Inc.) U.S. Appeals Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Court DELIBERATE Or. 2009). The administrators of an estate, the INDIFFERENCE husband, and guardians of the childr..."
Document | Núm. 52, March 2012 – 2012
Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
"...Failure to Provide Care, Pretrial Detainee PRETRIAL DETENTION: Medical Care, Use of Force USE OF FORCE: Stun Gun Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). The administrators of an estate, the husband, and guardians of the children of an arrestee who died following her arr..."
Document | Núm. 52, March 2012 – 2012
Table of cases.
"...U.S., 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009). 16, 27 Malles v. Lehigh County, 639 F.Supp.2d 566 (E.D.Pa. 2009). 2, 9, 23, 29 Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). 14, 17, 29, 32, 48 Marquez v. Quarterman, 652 F.Supp.2d 785 (E.D.Tex. 2009). 10, 18, 29 Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
4 books and journal articles
Document | Vol. 93 Núm. 3, May 2019 – 2019
To the "Victim" Go the Spoils: The Evolution and Operation of Spoliation of Evidence Law in Florida Product Liability Cases.
"...is not enough.). See also Snell v. Ford Motor Co., 2014 WL 11822753, at *2 (S.D. Fla. July 31, 2014) (citing Mann v. Taser Intl, Inc., 588 F. 3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir. 2009) (recognizing that "a finding of 'bad faith' is a prerequisite to a court's imposition of sanctions for spoliation of e..."
Document | Núm. 52, March 2012 – 2012
Part two: case summaries by major topic: part II.
"...they did not do everything they could or planned to do. (Lehigh County. Pennsylvania, and PrimeCare Medical, Inc.) U.S. Appeals Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Court DELIBERATE Or. 2009). The administrators of an estate, the INDIFFERENCE husband, and guardians of the childr..."
Document | Núm. 52, March 2012 – 2012
Part 1: complete case summaries in alphabetical order.
"...Failure to Provide Care, Pretrial Detainee PRETRIAL DETENTION: Medical Care, Use of Force USE OF FORCE: Stun Gun Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). The administrators of an estate, the husband, and guardians of the children of an arrestee who died following her arr..."
Document | Núm. 52, March 2012 – 2012
Table of cases.
"...U.S., 579 F.3d 79 (1st Cir. 2009). 16, 27 Malles v. Lehigh County, 639 F.Supp.2d 566 (E.D.Pa. 2009). 2, 9, 23, 29 Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2009). 14, 17, 29, 32, 48 Marquez v. Quarterman, 652 F.Supp.2d 785 (E.D.Tex. 2009). 10, 18, 29 Mays v. Springborn, 575 F.3d..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Florida – 2016
Grimage v. Hilliard
"...a serious medical need is determined by whether a delay in treating the need worsens the condition." Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1307 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Hill v. Dekalb Reg'l Youth Det. Ctr., 40 F.3d 1176, 1187 (11th Cir. 1994)). Defendants dispute the fact that Plaintif..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida – 2021
Fla. Carry, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
"...to that need; and (3) causation between that indifference and the plaintiff's injury." Sutherland , 416 F. App'x at 49 (quoting Mann, 588 F.3d at 1306–07 ). "A serious medical need is one that has been diagnosed by a physician as mandating treatment or one that is so obvious that even a lay..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama – 2019
Riggins v. Stewart
"...an officer is an agent." Penley v. Eslinger, 605 F.3d 843, 854 (11th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted); see also Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1309 (11th Cir. 2009) ("A claim asserted against an individual in his or her officialcapacity is, in reality, a suit against the entity that..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia – 2013
Keele v. Glynn Cnty.
"...against them. An underlyingsubstantive claim is a prerequisite to any request for punitive damages. Accord Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1304 (11th Cir.2009) (“A punitive damages claim is derivative of a plaintiff's tort claim, and where a court has dismissed a plaintiff's und..."
Document | Supreme Court of Kentucky – 2013
Ordway v. Commonwealth
"...in effect, negates a finding of bad faith, the missing instruction should not be given. Id. at 791 (citing Mann v. Taser Intern., Inc., 588 F.3d 1291, 1310 (11th Cir.2009)).17 Here, the disappearance of the evidence appeared to result from negligence arising out of the consolidation of the ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex