Burnett v. State
| Citation | 467 N.E.2d 664 |
| Decision Date | 27 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 884S331,884S331 |
| Parties | Juanita BURNETT, Administratrix of the Estate of Robert C. Burnett, Deceased, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
W. Scott Montross, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., G. Richard Potter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Juanita Burnett, as administratrix of the estate of her husband, Robert C. Burnett, brought suit in Marion County Circuit Court against the State of Indiana for the wrongful death of her husband. The suit arose out of an automobile collision at the intersection of State Road 26 and Creasey Lane in Tippecanoe County which resulted in Robert's death. Juanita claimed that the State negligently failed to warn the motoring public of a change in the traffic control light at the intersection. The case was tried in Hancock County Circuit Court. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Juanita, awarding her $6000 in damages, and the trial judge entered judgment on the verdict. Juanita filed a motion to correct errors asserting that the damages awarded her were inadequate. The motion was denied and Juanita appealed to the Court of Appeals. Finding that the damages awarded were inadequate if the State was indeed liable, but unable to determine if the jury considered some improper element or compromised in reaching its verdict, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court and ordered a new trial on all issues. The State petitions this Court for transfer. We grant transfer.
The issue before us is whether there was error in the jury's assessment of damages. We have said that in a wrongful death case we will reverse for inadequate damages only where it is apparent that the amount of damages assessed by the jury is so small as to indicate that in awarding the amount the jury was motivated by prejudice, passion, partiality or corruption, or considered some improper element. Henschen v. New York Central R. Co., (1945) 223 Ind. 393, 60 N.E.2d 738. See also, Faulk v. Chandler, (1980) Ind.App., 408 N.E.2d 584; Green v. Oakley, (1969) 145 Ind.App. 307, 250 N.E.2d 594. Indiana Code Sec. 34-1-1-2 provides in part that:
"[w]hen the death of one is caused by the wrongful act or omission of another, the personal representative of the former may maintain an action therefor against the latter ... and the damages shall be in such an amount as may be determined by the court or jury, including, but not limited to, reasonable medical, hospital, funeral, and burial expenses, and lost earnings of such deceased person resulting from said wrongful act or omission."
The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the amount of damages caused by the wrongful act of the defendant. Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co., (1978) 178 Ind.App. 505, 383 N.E.2d 387; Daly v. Nau, (1975) 167 Ind.App. 541, 339 N.E.2d 71, trans. denied.
To support her claim for damages here, Juanita presented evidence of medical and burial expenses totalling $4262.00. She also testified on direct examination that her husband earned $21,644.23 in 1974, $21,312.00 in 1975, $21,571.88 in 1976, $22,035.80 in 1977 and $27,151.35 in 1978 from his employment with Wickes Building Company as a pole building salesman. She produced no income tax returns or records to support these amounts, however, and acknowledged on cross-examination that at least some of these figures might include income earned by her. When questioned about Robert's income from January 1, 1979 until his death on June 16, 1979 she stated, "It seems I remember a figure of $10,000.00, something." Upon further cross-examination she was unable to estimate the amount of Robert's earnings that went for her support and while conceding that some of his earnings went to pay his business expenses, did not state by how much his income was reduced thereby. While she testified vaguely that she might be required to hire help to do work around the house that Robert had previously done, she further revealed she had not yet found it necessary to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley
...As in the 1970 case of Pickens, 255 Ind. 119, 263 N.E.2d 151, we repeated this notion about the measure of recovery in Burnett v. State, 467 N.E.2d 664 (Ind.1984), in which we considered whether a jury properly assessed damages under the wrongful death statute and In the case at bar, for th......
-
FMC Corp. v. Brown, 18A04-8611-CV-00350
... ... This is no more than an attempt to raise the state of the art defense provided by IND.CODE 33-1-1.5-4(b)(4). This is a statutory affirmative defense. See Rice v. Grant County Board of Commissioners ... 5 ... FMC correctly asserts the plaintiff in a wrongful death action has the burden of proof on the issue of damages. Burnett v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 664. However, FMC further contends this burden includes proof of the present value of such earnings ... ...
-
Dunkelbarger Const. Co. v. Watts
...be considered excessive only if they are so outrageous as to indicate passion, prejudice or partiality. Bouras, supra; Burnett v. State (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 664. The standard has been variously phrased as grossly excessive, inordinate, shocking to the judicial conscience, and outrageous......
-
Elmer Buchta Trucking, Inc. v. Stanley
...that the Indiana Supreme Court has approved of the use of personal maintenance evidence since the 1965 amendment. In Burnett v. State, 467 N.E.2d 664 (Ind.1984), the supreme court considered the adequacy of a damage award in a wrongful death case. The plaintiff, as the administratrix of her......