In Tierco v. Williams, the Maryland Court of Appeals reversed a $2.5 million jury verdict arising out of allegations of assault and battery, false imprisonment, and negligent supervision against an amusement park. The plaintiffs were a family that was forcibly removed from a roller coaster ride, after they refused to remove their four year old daughter from the roller coaster car. The daughter was under the height limit for the ride. However, the plaintiffs refused to obey the ride attendants' instructions, on the grounds that they had seen white children smaller than their daughter be allowed to go on the ride. After a 10-15 minute standoff in which the entire ride remained halted, the family agreed to get off. After that, there was an altercation with the amusement park's security officers, and everyone in the family except the four year old ended up in handcuffs. Then the entire family received letters barring them from the amusement park for life. None of the plaintiffs suffered any injuries more serious than minor cuts and bruises.
The case went to a jury trial in Prince George's County, Maryland, and the jury awarded a total of $1,000,000 in compensatory damages, and $1,500,000 in punitive damages. Although the complaint contained no mention of racial discrimination, race became the major focus of the trial.
The Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the jury’s verdict in favor of plaintiffs/Respondents is reversed because of a significant probability that the verdict was influenced by improper and irrelevant insinuations by their attorneys and certain of their witnesses of racial discrimination by alleged employees of the corporate defendant.
The Court also held that a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict is timely filed if filed within 10 days after the judgment to which it is addressed, even if at the time, a final judgment on all claims against all parties had not yet been entered.
Ironically, at trial the plaintiffs did not even contest that the four year old was too small to go on that ride:
It is clear that Six Flags had an objective basis to prevent Shaniqua from riding the ride. At one point during trial, Respondents’ counsel made it clear that Respondents did not dispute the decision of the Six Flags employees to keep her from riding. Indeed, an argument to the contrary would have been nonsensical because . . . [the four year old] would have been put in danger of injury had the Six Flags employees allowed her to ride.
It is also ironic that the Court of Appeals reversed even though the defense failed to raise any objections to the racial remarks at trial:
We come to this conclusion even though Tierco does not appear to have objected to Respondents’ race-based arguments and “evidence” during trial. “[O]rdinarily a party will not be permitted to raise on appeal an error to which he has not interposed a seasonable objection at trial.” . . . Only in rare and extreme cases should we elect to address on appeal an issue that was not preserved properly at trial.
