Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Garner v. Limbocker
Citations: 28 Ark. App. 68; 770 S.W.2d 673; 1989 Ark. App. LEXIS 275Docket: CA 88-392
Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; May 24, 1989; Arkansas; State Appellate Court
Patricia Garner, as the administratrix of Ilia Frank Hill, Jr.'s estate, appeals a $3,000.00 award for attorney's fees and costs from the City of Fort Smith under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, following a trial related to her brother's death after an altercation with police. The incident on April 18, 1981, involved three officers responding to a disturbance call; Hill was arrested after attempting to flee and sustained internal injuries, later leading to his death after surgeries. Garner initially sought $2,650,000.00 in damages, alleging assault and negligence in medical care against the officers, later dismissing claims against two officers and filing a malpractice suit against the treating physician, which resulted in a $30,000.00 settlement. In 1983, she amended her complaint to include the city, claiming inadequate medical care and supervision of officers, particularly regarding Officer Robert Limbocker's excessive force. The trial in 1988 found the city lacked a policy on medical care for detainees and that training inadequacies did not cause injury. Although the jury acknowledged a pattern of excessive force, it awarded no damages. The trial court awarded Garner $3,000.00 in attorney's fees, which she now contests as insufficient, claiming it does not reflect the 353.90 hours worked by her attorneys from 1981 to 1988. Appellant cited Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community v. City of Prior Lake to support the principle that 42 U.S.C. § 1988 encourages the litigation of civil rights actions and the awarding of attorney’s fees to attract competent counsel. The court, while not required to award fees, granted appellant $3,000.00 based on discretion under § 1988 and referenced Hensley v. Eckerhart for guidelines on determining reasonable fees. Factors considered included time and labor, complexity of issues, attorney skill, customary fees, results obtained, and the attorney's experience. Despite finding that appellant's constitutional rights had been violated, the court noted the jury awarded no damages, indicating limited success. The court justified the fee reduction based on this lack of damages and the appellant's limited success in the overall litigation. The determination of reasonableness of the fee awarded is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. The appellant, having sought $2,650,000.00 in damages but receiving none, bore the burden of proof for entitlement to fees. The court concluded that the findings were reasonable and did not constitute an abuse of discretion in awarding $3,000.00 in attorney’s fees, leading to an affirmation of the award.