- May 21, 2026
- 15,802
- 0
The civil lawsuit brought by Tyreek Hill's ex-wife alleging multiple counts of battery and related legal claims has resulted in a verdict. Via Diana Moskovitz of Defector Media, the jury found Hill responsible for two counts of battery. He was found not responsible on the remaining counts.
The jury awarded Keeta Vaccaro $500,000 in compensatory damages. The jury did not enter an award of punitive damages.
The jury's decision not to award punitive damages is curious. Battery is an intentional tort. In Florida, however, the law requires "clear and convincing evidence" of intentional misconduct. It's possible, in theory, that the jury found evidence of battery under the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard but not "clear and convincing" proof, which is a higher bar.
The outcome becomes relevant to the NFL's ongoing Personal Conduct Policy review arising from the allegations Vaccaro initially made against Hill in a divorce filing. The findings represent a neutral determination that Hill more likely than not committed battery, twice. However, the Personal Conduct Policy does not automatically subject a player to discipline based solely on a civil verdict; the league will still need to perform its own investigation and reach a conclusion through the collectively-bargained process.
Regardless, the finding of two instances of civil battery, plus a $500,000 verdict, could cause one or more potentially interested teams to refrain from pursuing him. Especially since the league could still find that Hill violated the policy as to the two incidents on which Hill lost — and all incidents on which he prevailed.
The jury awarded Keeta Vaccaro $500,000 in compensatory damages. The jury did not enter an award of punitive damages.
The jury's decision not to award punitive damages is curious. Battery is an intentional tort. In Florida, however, the law requires "clear and convincing evidence" of intentional misconduct. It's possible, in theory, that the jury found evidence of battery under the lower "preponderance of the evidence" standard but not "clear and convincing" proof, which is a higher bar.
The outcome becomes relevant to the NFL's ongoing Personal Conduct Policy review arising from the allegations Vaccaro initially made against Hill in a divorce filing. The findings represent a neutral determination that Hill more likely than not committed battery, twice. However, the Personal Conduct Policy does not automatically subject a player to discipline based solely on a civil verdict; the league will still need to perform its own investigation and reach a conclusion through the collectively-bargained process.
Regardless, the finding of two instances of civil battery, plus a $500,000 verdict, could cause one or more potentially interested teams to refrain from pursuing him. Especially since the league could still find that Hill violated the policy as to the two incidents on which Hill lost — and all incidents on which he prevailed.