Brandon v. County Of Richardson

Facts

Teena Brandon, Lisa Lambert, and Phillip Devine were found murdered Lotter and Nissen were convicted of the murders. Brandon's mother, JoAnn Brandon (P), brought an action against Richardson County and Sheriff Charles B. Laux (D) for negligence, wrongful death, and intentional infliction of emotional distress in connection with Brandon's murder and the events leading up to her death. Brandon had been sexually abused as a child, and in her late teens, developed gender identity disorder, a condition in which one develops a strong dislike for one's own gender and assumes the characteristics, both behaviorally and emotionally, of the other gender. Brandon came to Richardson County after leaving Lincoln due to legal troubles. Brandon had been convicted of forgery in Lancaster County and had violated the terms of her probation. Brandon presented herself as a man. Brandon had obtained a driver's license identifying herself by the name of Charles Brayman. Brandon met Lana Tisdel. She dated Brandon for approximately 1 month. Brandon was booked into the Richardson County jail on forgery charges for forging checks in Richardson County. Brandon was placed in an area of the jail where females are usually held. Lotter and Nissen became suspicious of Brandon's sexual identity. In an attempt to prove to Tisdel that Brandon was a female, Lotter and Nissen pulled Brandon's pants down in Tisdel's presence. Later that same morning, Lotter and Nissen beat Brandon, hitting her in the head, kicking her in the ribs, and stepping on her back. Lotter and Nissen then drove Brandon to a remote location where both Lotter and Nissen sexually assaulted Brandon. After the sexual assaults, Nissen beat Brandon again. Eventually, on a return to a house, Brandon escaped by kicking out a bathroom window and ran to the home of Linda Gutierres, Tisdel's mother. Brandon was transported to the local hospital, where Brandon reported that she had been beaten and sexually assaulted. A rape examination was performed at the hospital, and the results, which showed that Brandon had been sexually penetrated, were turned over to law enforcement. D and Deputy Tom Olberding conducted a tape-recorded interview with Brandon. D had been informed by the hospital staff that Brandon had been beaten and sexually penetrated. D's statements and questions included the following: 'So they got ready to poke you'; 'they tried sinking it in your vagina'; 'So then after he couldn't stick it in your vagina he stuck it in your box or in your buttocks, is that right?'; 'Did it feel like he stuck it in very far or not?'; 'Did he tell you anything about this is how they do it in the penitentiary?'; 'Was he enjoying it?'; 'Did he think it was funny?'; 'Did he play with your breasts or anything?'; and 'Well, was he fingering you?' D also confronted Brandon over details about her prior sex life and whether she helped her assailants become erect. He also confronted her over her going around pretending to be a guy. Brandon's statements were verified by independent witnesses. Nissen voluntarily went to the police station and, after being read his Miranda rights, gave a statement admitting that he had pulled Brandon's pants down to determine her gender. He also admitted hitting her in the mouth and kicking her. He admitted that he, Lotter, and Brandon were at the location where Brandon claimed the rapes occurred, but denied that he had sexually assaulted Brandon. The sheriff's office requested that Brandon return that afternoon for another interview. When Brandon arrived at the courthouse that afternoon, Lotter and Nissen, who had not yet been arrested, were outside the courthouse, and Brandon did not go in. Law enforcement did not make any attempt to contact Brandon about the missed interview. D was aware that Lotter and Nissen had criminal records. He was aware that Lotter had once escaped from custody in the middle of the day wearing an orange prison uniform and had had to be chased down by deputies. He knew that Lotter had been involved in a scuffle with a Missouri Highway Patrol officer, which resulted in the officer's drawing his gun on Lotter. D knew that people in the community were afraid of Lotter. Laux also knew that Nissen had been incarcerated in the penitentiary. The sheriff's office was also aware that Lotter and Nissen had threatened to harm Brandon if she reported the rapes. On December 31, 1993, Brandon, Lambert, and Devine, another friend, were found murdered in Lambert's house. That same day, Lotter and Nissen were arrested for the December 25 sexual assaults on Brandon. Lotter and Nissen were later charged with and convicted of the three murders. When Brandon's family members, including Schweitzer, went to the sheriff's office to obtain information regarding Brandon's death and to retrieve some of Brandon's personal effects D called Schweitzer a 'bitch' and asked her 'what kind of sister did [you] have?' P sued D. The district court issued a 'Memorandum Finding,' determining that D had a duty to protect Brandon due to the special relationship between the county and Brandon which was created when Brandon agreed to assist the county by testifying against Lotter and Nissen. The court determined that the county was negligent in that it failed to take measures to protect Brandon. The court awarded economic damages of $6,223.20 and noneconomic damages of $80,000 for Brandon's pre-death pain and suffering. The court determined that Brandon herself was negligent and that the damage award should be reduced by 1 percent for such negligence. The court further reduced the damage award by 85 percent, allocating that percentage to the intentional torts of Lotter and Nissen. Thus, the court determined that the county was responsible for 14 percent of the noneconomic damages. The court entered judgment against the county for a total of $17,360.97. It denied recovery on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, determining that D's conduct was not extreme and outrageous because 'the evidence does not reach such high status' and that in addition there was 'a failure to prove that [Brandon] suffered' as a result of Laux's conduct P appealed.

Issues

Rule of Law

Holding and Decision

Legal Analysis

© 2007-2024 ABN Study Partner.