Gold Coast asks court to overturn $573,000 award

Wednesday, April 10, 2002 | 11:05 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- An attorney for the Gold Coast hotel-casino in Las Vegas urged the Nevada Supreme Court on Tuesday to overturn a $573,000 judgment awarded a male customer and his female companion after the man was beaten by security guards.

Daniel Polensberg, attorney for the Gold Coast, told the court "I could have saved this case if I had gotten the right jury instructions." Polsenberg criticized District Judge Gary Redmon for not listening to his objections to the jury instructions offered by the lawyer for Dedrick Holman and Christian Edwards.

But Leo Flangas, attorney for Holman and Edwards, said the jury was correct in finding that Holman was beaten by a nightstick and fists and kicked after he was handcuffed. He asked the court to sustain the lower court decision.

Five years after the beating in 1994, he said Holman is still suffering.

Holman received $459,700, of which $281,000 was in punitive damages. Edwards got $114,000, of which $94,000 came from the punitive damage award.

Polsenberg centered his argument on the award of punitive damages, saying they should not have been ordered against the Gold Coast -- which had a policy against using excessive force on customers by its security officers.

The jury, Polsenberg said, wrongly assumed that security Sgt. Paul Malloy was a managerial employee and therefore the punitive damages should be assessed the hotel-casino. He said Malloy did not have the ability to change policy and therefore could not be considered a manager, even though he was in charge of security on that shift.

He said the jury assumed Malloy had to ability to decide policy because it was not given a correct instruction.

Flangas said Malloy saw everything and did not stop the beating. He told the court Malloy was responsible for the safety of guests. "A corporation can act through its employees," he argued.

"You can't allow the corporation to hide," he told the court.

Flangas said Malloy was the agent of Gold Coast "to make sure things ran smoothly" and therefore the Gold Coast was liable for punitive damages.

The court took the arguments under submission and will rule later.