Spears v. Akron Police Department
Ohio Court of Appeals
2010 WL 625822 (2010)
- Written by Arlyn Katen, JD
Facts
Gerald Spears (plaintiff) was a driver involved in a car accident. Officer Kabellar (defendant) responded to the scene and arrested Spears because Kabellar believed Spears was a drunk driver. Spears claimed that during the arrest, Spears was not physically combative but that Kabellar slammed Spears’s face into a police car, grabbed Spears’s neck and arm, and handcuffed Spears too tightly. Spears later consulted a physician and hand specialist regarding an injury to his left wrist, and Spears ultimately needed surgery. Spears and his wife filed a tort lawsuit against the Akron Police Department, the city of Akron, Kabellar, and a John Doe officer (defendants), claiming assault and battery due to excessive force, intentional infliction of emotional distress, reckless infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. The government and its agents filed for summary judgment, asserting they were immune from the lawsuit. The trial court granted summary judgment to the Akron Police Department, finding that it was immune from suit. The trial court also dismissed Spears’s intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim. The trial court denied the city’s and Kabellar’s motions for summary judgment, finding that both defendants could be sued for Kabellar’s alleged excessive force. Kabellar and the city appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.