Law360 (June 30, 2026, 7:33 PM EDT) -- The Eleventh Circuit on Tuesday upheld a $21 million verdict against an Atlanta Police Department officer whose shocking of a man with a Taser left him paralyzed from a resulting fall, keeping intact a $20 million compensatory damages award and a previously-slashed $1 million in punitive damages.

In a split opinion, the majority of a three-judge appellate panel affirmed the judgment entered against Officer Jon Grubbs in the case brought against him by Keith Edwards, who sued on behalf of Jerry Blasingame. The use of a Taser caused Blasingame, who was panhandling on the side of a road on the day of the incident, to tumble down a steep embankment and strike his head on a utility box, records show.

The panel, however, backed a federal judge's decision to reduce the $20 million punitive damages award originally entered against Blasingame to $1 million.

Punitive damages may be awarded for "'outrageous'" conduct, the panel said, noting that the "'most important indicium of the reasonableness of a punitive damages award is the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct.'" Here, the judges said evidence supports the district court's finding that Grubbs' conduct on the day of the incident was "reprehensible but not overly egregious."

While evidence and trial testimony showed that Grubbs tased Blasingame in the back and sent him plummeting down an embankment, the panel said there was also evidence that Grubbs' actions were not motivated by intentional malice. Grubbs was trying to apprehend Blasingame, who was fleeing, and the entire interaction lasted less than one minute, the panel said. Grubbs never tried to hide what happened and instead called for an ambulance and told his superior about his use of force, according to the opinion.

"The district court's findings underlying the reprehensibility guidepost were not erroneous," the panel said. "Officer Grubbs' conduct, though reprehensible, was not so egregious as to support a $20 million award."

The panel also noted that Grubbs did not have "constitutionally adequate notice" that his actions could result in a $20 million punitive damages award, and thus "some meaningful reduction is warranted."

"The guideposts indicate that some award of punitive damages is appropriate and constitutional, but $20 million exceeds the bounds of due process," the panel said. "The difficulty, we candidly admit, is trying to figure out the maximum amount of punitive damages that a jury could have constitutionally awarded on this record."

The panel declined to grapple with that issue, saying it did not need to do so when Edwards took an "all-or-nothing approach" on appeal, contending that no reduction was appropriate and offering no alternative lower figure.

Turning to Edwards' argument that the district court wrongly denied his motion for attorney fees, the panel said nothing required the lower court to order fees to a prevailing party before an appeal is completed.

"We therefore conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in deferring its calculation of reasonable fees and denying Mr. Edwards' motion without prejudice," the panel said.

As to Grubbs' arguments that he was wrongly denied judgment as a matter of law based on qualified immunity, the panel found that was not the case because there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find he violated Blasingame's Fourth Amendment right to be free from excessive force.

Among other things, the judges noted that Grubbs did not have probable cause to believe Blasingame had inflicted or was planning to inflict "'serious physical harm'" on anyone, was an immediate threat to law enforcement or carried a weapon on the day of the accident.

"Understanding that we cannot operate at a high level of generality, the question here is whether it was clearly established in July of 2018 that an officer could not fire a taser at an unarmed panhandling suspect feeling on foot who had not threatened anyone, was not a danger, and was in a vulnerable position—i.e., running down a steep embankment leading to a highway—that created a danger of death or serious bodily harm," the panel said. "We answer that question affirmatively."

Judge Kevin C. Newsom dissented from the majority on the qualified immunity issue, saying he believes the majority wrongly found that Grubbs violated "'clearly established' law" when he used excessive force to shock Blasingame.

Not even the majority said it was obvious that any reasonable police officer in Grubbs' position would have known his conduct violated the Fourth Amendment, Judge Newsom said, noting that the other judges acknowledged Blasingame was fleeing at the time of the incident and that there was some "'need for the use of force.'" The most that can be said is that a jury could find Grubbs violated the U.S. Constitution, the judge said, and "not that any reasonable officer would necessarily have come to the same conclusion."

The majority reached its differing opinion by relying on the 2021 case Bradley v. Benton , in which the Eleventh Circuit concluded that an officer's decision to tase a man at an elevated height violated the man's Fourth Amendment rights. But Judge Newsom said he believed relying on that case was inappropriate.

"The panel's decision there post-dates the events underlying this case by several years," Judge Newsom said. "And it is hornbook law that in order to defeat qualified immunity, the law must be clearly established 'at the time of the alleged misconduct.'"

The judge noted that the majority also cited the 1985 case Tennessee v. Garner , but he said they did not reach their conclusion by referring to that case or its facts.

"Instead, it trains its focus exclusively on the details of Bradley and endeavors to explain why the two cases are materially indistinguishable," Judge Newsom said. "In so doing, I fear the court verges dangerously close to finding the law clearly established based on then-nonexistent precedent."

Grubbs stopped Blasingame in July 2018 beside an Atlanta highway on suspicion of panhandling cars, records show. When Blasingame turned to flee, Grubbs fired his Taser at Blasingame's back, and the man went limp and rolled down an embankment, hitting his head on a utility box.

Blasingame, an Atlanta resident at the time, fell unconscious at the scene, bled profusely from his head and suffered a severe spinal cord injury that left him paralyzed from the neck down.

After trial, U.S. District Judge Steve Jones freed the city from its $60 million portion of the verdict, which was based on a claim that the event resulted from institutional policy failures, and slashed the punitive damages against Grubbs to $1 million.

Tuesday's opinion substitutes a prior opinion issued by the court in March, the panel said.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

U.S. Circuit Judges Adalberto Jordan and Kevin Newsom and U.S. District Judge Charlene Honeywell, sitting by designation, sat on the panel for the Eleventh Circuit.

Edwards is represented by Christopher P. Desmond of Ven Johnson Law PLC.

The city of Atlanta and Grubbs are represented by Harold D. Melton, Charles E. Peeler, Elizabeth P. Waldbeser and Alexander J. Hill of Troutman Pepper Locke LLP and by James E. Dearing Jr. of James E. Dearing Jr. PC.

The cases are Edwards v. Grubbs et al., case numbers 24-12787 and 24-12925, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

--Editing by Vaqas Asghar.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.