$126 Million Verdict in Emily Gaines Case Against City of Moore

On April 1, 2026, a federal jury in Oklahoma City returned a $126 million verdict in favor of the family of Emily Gaines — an 18-year-old Moore High School senior who was killed on December 14, 2019, when an off-duty police officer slammed into her vehicle at nearly twice the posted speed limit. The verdict in Gaines v. City of Moore, Case No. 5:20-cv-00851 (W.D. Okla.), delivered before Chief Judge Timothy D. DeGiusti, has been reported as the largest non-class-action plaintiff's verdict in Oklahoma history. The Gaines family was represented at trial by Chris Hammons of Laird Hammons Laird and Jason Hicks of the Hicks Law Firm in Oklahoma City. Addison Law was not counsel in this case, but we follow police accountability litigation in Oklahoma closely and believe this verdict carries significant implications for families across the state.

What Happened to Emily Gaines

Emily Gaines was a senior at Moore High School on the morning of December 14, 2019. She was driving to take the ACT — a college admission exam — when her vehicle was struck by Kyle Lloyd, a sergeant with the Moore Police Department. Lloyd was off-duty that Saturday morning, driving his personal vehicle, but he was not on a personal errand. Another Moore officer, Kyle Wagner, had accidentally locked his keys inside a police vehicle while participating in the department's annual "Shop With a Cop" charitable event. Wagner called Lloyd — the only person with a spare key — and told him to hurry. Lloyd left his home and drove to meet Wagner at approximately 94 to 96 miles per hour in a 50-mph zone. He struck Emily Gaines's vehicle at an intersection. She died at the scene.

Emily was 18 years old. She was on her way to take a test that would help determine where she went to college. Instead, her family buried her because a police officer decided that delivering a spare set of keys was worth driving nearly 100 miles per hour through a suburban intersection on a Saturday morning. The facts of this case are not ambiguous, and neither the criminal nor civil proceedings left any doubt about what happened.

The Criminal Case

In June 2021, Kyle Lloyd pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in Cleveland County. He was sentenced to 18 years, with nine years to be served in prison and the remainder suspended. The guilty plea resolved the criminal case, but it did not address the broader question of institutional accountability — specifically, whether the City of Moore bore responsibility for creating the conditions that led to Emily's death. That question went to a federal jury.

The criminal sentence was significant in its own right. The 18-year sentence reflected the severity of Lloyd's conduct — driving at nearly double the speed limit through a suburban intersection for a non-emergency task. But criminal accountability and civil accountability serve different purposes. A criminal conviction punishes the individual. A civil verdict determines whether the institution that employed, trained, and directed that individual should share responsibility for the harm. The Gaines family pursued both.

The Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit

Emily's parents filed Gaines v. City of Moore in the Western District of Oklahoma in 2020, bringing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kyle Lloyd and state-law claims against the City of Moore. The case proceeded on two distinct legal theories. The § 1983 claim against Lloyd alleged that his conduct — driving at reckless speed while performing a police department task — violated Emily's constitutional rights. The claim against the City of Moore was based on state-law respondeat superior principles: if Lloyd was acting within the scope of his employment when he killed Emily, the City was vicariously liable for his actions under Oklahoma law.

The City argued that Lloyd was off-duty, driving his personal vehicle, and responding to a personal request from a colleague. Under this theory, he was acting on his own, and the City bore no responsibility. The Gaines family argued that Lloyd was performing a task directly connected to department operations — delivering keys to a fellow officer so that officer could continue participating in an official police department event — and that his actions therefore fell within the scope of his employment.

The jury sided with the Gaines family on both theories. It awarded $90 million against Kyle Lloyd on the § 1983 civil rights claim and $36 million against the City of Moore on the state-law vicarious liability claim. The combined $126 million verdict has been reported as the largest non-class-action plaintiff's verdict in Oklahoma history.

Why Scope of Employment Mattered

The scope-of-employment finding is one of the most legally significant aspects of this verdict. Under Oklahoma law, an employer is liable for the torts of an employee committed within the scope of employment — meaning the employee was performing work assigned by the employer or was engaged in conduct incidental to that work. The question is always whether the employee's actions were undertaken to serve the employer's interests, even if the specific conduct was unauthorized or reckless.

In police cases, scope-of-employment analysis can become particularly complex. Officers frequently argue they were "off-duty" at the time of an incident, and municipalities frequently rely on that characterization to avoid liability. But Oklahoma courts have consistently held that the critical question is not whether the officer was on the clock — it is whether the officer's actions were connected to the employer's business. An officer who responds to a department need, uses department authority, or acts in furtherance of department operations may be within the scope of employment regardless of shift status.

Here, the evidence was compelling. Lloyd was not running a personal errand. He was responding to a call from a fellow officer who needed help with a department vehicle during a department-organized event. The spare key Lloyd was delivering belonged to a police vehicle. The event was an official Moore Police Department function. The jury concluded that Lloyd's actions, however reckless, were undertaken in furtherance of his employment — and that the City of Moore therefore bore responsibility for the consequences.

This analysis matters for any Oklahoma family considering a civil rights claim against a municipality. Municipalities will almost always argue that the offending officer was acting outside the scope of employment. Understanding how Oklahoma courts and juries evaluate that defense — looking at the nature of the task, the connection to departmental operations, and the employer's interests — is essential to building a viable case.

The GTCA Cap and the Entered Judgment

The City of Moore issued a public statement after the verdict acknowledging the jury's finding that Lloyd was negligent but disagreeing with the determination that he was acting within the scope of his employment. The City noted that its liability under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act is capped — and that distinction played out in the entered judgment.

The Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA) imposes statutory damage caps on tort claims against Oklahoma political subdivisions. Because this case arose from a 2019 incident, the pre-amendment version of 51 O.S. § 154 applied, capping liability at $125,000 per claimant for non-property claims. On April 6, 2026, the court entered judgment reflecting that cap — $125,000 against the City of Moore and $90 million against Kyle Lloyd individually.

The practical reality of this case illustrates a dynamic that families must understand. The jury found that the City bore responsibility — but the GTCA cap means the City's actual financial exposure was a fraction of the jury's $36 million award. Meanwhile, the $90 million § 1983 judgment against Lloyd is not subject to the GTCA cap because it is a federal civil rights claim, not a state-law tort claim. Federal courts have consistently held that state damage caps cannot limit recoveries under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, because doing so would undermine the federal statute's purpose of providing a meaningful remedy for constitutional violations.

For families evaluating potential cases against Oklahoma municipalities, this distinction is critical. Pursuing claims exclusively under state law subjects the family to the GTCA cap. Pursuing claims under § 1983 in federal court — where municipalities cannot assert qualified immunity against damages — often provides the only path to meaningful financial accountability. But as the Gaines case demonstrates, proving municipal liability under § 1983 requires meeting the demanding Monell standard of showing that a constitutional violation resulted from an official policy, custom, or practice — a higher bar than state-law respondeat superior. Here, the court granted Moore summary judgment on the Monell claim before trial, meaning the City's ultimate liability was governed by state law and its GTCA cap. The Gaines verdict illustrates both the power and the complexity of pursuing accountability on multiple fronts.

What This Verdict Means for Police Accountability in Oklahoma

The Gaines verdict arrives at a moment when Oklahoma juries have shown a willingness to hold law enforcement institutions accountable for the consequences of their operations. This verdict followed closely on the heels of other significant accountability results in the state, including the $2 million verdict against the Oklahoma County Jail Trust in April 2026 for the death of Gregory Davis — a case in which Addison Law served as part of the trial team.

These verdicts share a common thread: juries are looking beyond the conduct of individual officers and evaluating whether the institutions that employ them created the conditions for harm. In the Davis case, the jury found that the Jail Trust's systemic understaffing and missed cell checks constituted deliberate indifference. In the Gaines case, the jury found that the City of Moore bore responsibility because Lloyd's fatal drive was undertaken in service of department operations.

For Oklahoma families, the lesson is clear. When a law enforcement officer causes serious harm — whether through excessive force, reckless conduct in the course of police duties, or medical neglect in custody — the question is not limited to what the individual officer did. The question extends to what the institution allowed, facilitated, or failed to prevent. Federal Section 1983 claims provide the legal mechanism to ask that question in front of a jury, and Oklahoma juries are responding with substantial verdicts. It is important to note, however, that § 1983 requires more than negligence — a plaintiff must show that the officer's conduct rose to the level of a constitutional violation, such as conduct that shocks the conscience or demonstrates deliberate indifference.

The Importance of Experienced Trial Counsel

The Gaines verdict also underscores a reality that families considering police accountability cases must understand: these cases go to trial. The City of Moore did not settle before trial. Many municipalities will not, particularly when the scope-of-employment defense gives them a plausible argument for avoiding institutional liability. Cases like Gaines v. City of Moore require attorneys who are prepared to try the case to a jury — not just file the lawsuit and negotiate.

Chris Hammons, Jason Hicks, and their teams took this case through years of litigation, pretrial motion practice, and a full federal jury trial. The result speaks for itself. Addison Law regularly works alongside attorneys like Hammons and Hicks on complex civil rights and wrongful death matters across Oklahoma, and this verdict is a testament to the caliber of advocacy that Oklahoma plaintiffs' attorneys are capable of delivering when a case demands it.

Families evaluating potential civil rights claims should seek counsel with demonstrated federal trial experience — attorneys who have tried § 1983 cases in the Western District and the Tenth Circuit and who understand the specific procedural and evidentiary demands of federal police accountability litigation.

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the verdict in the Emily Gaines case?

On April 1, 2026, a federal jury in the Western District of Oklahoma returned a $126 million verdict in favor of the family of Emily Gaines. The verdict included $90 million against former Moore police officer Kyle Lloyd on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights claim and $36 million against the City of Moore on a state-law vicarious liability claim. The court subsequently entered judgment capping the City's liability at $125,000 under the GTCA while entering the full $90 million judgment against Lloyd.

Who represented the Gaines family?

The Gaines family was represented at trial by Chris Hammons of Laird Hammons Laird and Jason Hicks of the Hicks Law Firm in Oklahoma City. Addison Law was not counsel in this case.

What happened to Kyle Lloyd criminally?

Kyle Lloyd pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in Cleveland County in June 2021 and was sentenced to 18 years, with nine years to be served in prison. The civil lawsuit was filed separately and addressed the City of Moore's institutional liability.

Why was the City of Moore's judgment capped at $125,000?

The $36 million jury award against the City was a state-law vicarious liability verdict, not a federal civil rights verdict. State-law tort claims against Oklahoma political subdivisions are subject to the damage caps in the Governmental Tort Claims Act. Because this case arose from a 2019 incident, the pre-amendment version of 51 O.S. § 154 applied, limiting the City's liability to $125,000 per claimant. The $90 million § 1983 judgment against Lloyd individually is not subject to the GTCA cap.

What does "scope of employment" mean in a police case?

Scope of employment determines whether an employer is vicariously liable for an employee's actions under state law. In the Gaines case, the jury found that Lloyd — although technically off-duty — was acting within the scope of his employment because he was delivering keys to another officer during an official police department event. Oklahoma courts evaluate whether the employee's actions were connected to the employer's business, not simply whether the employee was on the clock.

Does this verdict affect other police accountability cases in Oklahoma?

While each case depends on its own facts, the Gaines verdict demonstrates that Oklahoma juries are willing to impose substantial accountability when evidence shows that an officer's harmful conduct was connected to department operations. The scope-of-employment finding is particularly instructive for families considering claims against cities or counties in similar circumstances. The case also illustrates the importance of pursuing both federal § 1983 claims and state-law theories to maximize accountability.

How long do I have to file a civil rights lawsuit in Oklahoma?

The statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim in Oklahoma is two years. The limitations period generally begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury and its cause. Preserving evidence — including body camera footage, dispatch records, internal communications, and department policies — requires prompt action. Families who believe a law enforcement officer caused the death or serious injury of a loved one should consult an attorney as soon as possible.

---

Addison Law represents families across Oklahoma in civil rights and wrongful death cases involving law enforcement misconduct, including claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If you have lost a loved one due to unconstitutional police conduct, contact us for a free, confidential consultation.

This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Addison Law was not counsel in the Gaines case. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.