A judge significantly reduced the amount of damages a jury ordered a Norfolk police officer to pay earlier this year in a civil case that began after the officer yanked a man off a bicycle, breaking his leg.
Norfolk Circuit Judge Everett Martin slashed the amount Aaron Christie must pay to less than a fifth of what the jury decided — cutting the award from $200,000 to $35,000 — according to an order filed in the case last month.
Martin wrote in a nine-page opinion that the evidence presented at trial didn’t support the compensatory and punitive damage amounts the jury agreed upon in April in Norfolk Circuit Court. The judge also wrote the verdict indicated the jury had “misconceived or misconstrued the facts or the law.”
Christian Connell, a Norfolk lawyer who filed the lawsuit on behalf of the injured man, Derrick Rountree, didn’t respond to a request for comment. Norfolk Deputy City Attorney Michael Beverly, who represented Christie, declined to comment. Beverly also wouldn’t say whether the city, or Christie, would be responsible for paying the damages.
The case stems from an incident on Christmas Eve 2018 in the Tidewater Gardens public housing complex.
Christie and another officer were in a police cruiser when they saw Rountree, 42, riding a bike at night without a headlight, which is illegal in Virginia.
The officers briefly flashed their lights, sounded their siren, and said something over a bullhorn to get Rountree’s attention, but because he was on a bike, and not in a car, Rountree thought the alerts were aimed for someone else and continued to ride on, according to a lawsuit he filed.
When Rountree didn’t stop, Christie ran after him on foot. The chase was captured on Christie’s body camera and was presented as evidence at the civil trial. The footage shows Rountree riding slowly down a sidewalk in the housing complex when Christie grabs him from behind, causing Rountree to fall.
Rountree’s leg was broken in three places. He underwent surgery, was hospitalized for several days and incurred $94,600 in medical bills, according to court documents. He was working as a barber at the time and was unable to perform his job for months afterward.
Rountree was issued summonses afterward for riding a bike at night without a headlight and obstruction of justice. He later pleaded guilty to the headlight charge, and a judge acquitted him of the obstruction charge.
Rountree filed his lawsuit in July 2019, accusing Christie of assault and battery, gross negligence and malicious prosecution. The father of two adult children died before the case made it to trial, however, when he was randomly shot near a convenience store in June 2021. His family continued to pursue the lawsuit.
The jury determined Christie hadn’t assaulted Rountree, nor had he acted with gross negligence, according to Martin’s opinion. But the panel did find that the officer had maliciously prosecuted Rountree by charging him with obstruction of justice, and awarded compensatory damages of $95,000 and punitive damages of $105,000.
The city asked Martin to review and reduce the award. Martin determined that because Rountree was not arrested or jailed, and didn’t have to pay for his court-appointed attorney, he didn’t suffer the typical damages found in a malicious prosecution case.
During closing arguments, Rountree’s attorney only asked for $1,000 in compensatory damages, and $5,000 in punitive damages, on the malicious prosecution claims, the judge said, while asking for much higher amounts for the allegations of assault and batter and gross negligence.
“The verdict for $95,000 (in compensatory damages) indicates to the court that the jury misconceived and misconstrued the facts or the law,” the judge wrote. “They found Christie was not grossly negligent and that he did not use excessive force in stopping Rountree, but they wished to compensate him for his medical expenses.”
“The court informed the jury by Instruction No. 20 that they could award the plaintiff Rountree’s ‘medical expenses incurred in the past’ for gross negligence or battery, but this was not allowed under Instruction No. 33 for malicious prosecution.”
Jane Harper, jane.harper@pilotonline.com
