Chrysler Corp. v. Alumbaugh
| Decision Date | 10 June 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 3--1173A152,3--1173A152 |
| Citation | 168 Ind.App. 363,348 N.E.2d 654 |
| Parties | CHRYSLER CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, v. Frederick L. ALUMBAUGH, Plaintiff-Appellee, and Edward E. York, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Joel C. Levy, Steven R. Crist, Highland, Tinkham, Beckman, Kelly & Singleton, Hammond, for defendant-appellant.
Michael C. Harris, Robert A. Welsh, Harris & Welsh, Chesterton, for Frederick L. Alumbaugh.
William S. Spangler, Spangler, Jennings, Spangler & Dougherty, Gary, for Edward E. York.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Chrysler's petition for rehearing questions, inter alia, whether the proper standard of appellate review was applied in determining that error in giving a 'missing witness' instruction was harmless.
In support of its argument, Chrysler quotes from American Employers Ins. Co. v. Cornell (1948), 225 Ind. 559, 569, 76 N.E.2d 562, 566:
'It is true that prejudice from an erroneous instruction is presumed unless the contrary affirmatively appears and in considering the effect of an erroneous instruction this court assumes that the error influenced the result unless it appears from the interrogatories, the evidence, or some other part of the record that the verdict under proper instructions could not have been different.'
The quotation also appears in Probst, Receiver v. Spitznagle (1939), 215 Ind. 402, 19 N.E.2d 263; City of Decatur v. Eady (1917), 186 Ind. 205, 115 N.E. 577; N.Y.C.R.R. v. Knoll (1965), 140 Ind.App. 264, 204 N.E.2d 220; Perkins v. Sullivan (1957), 127 Ind.App. 426, 143 N.E.2d 105; and Public Svc. Co. v. DeArk (1950), 120 Ind.App. 353, 92 N.E.2d 723. 1
Other cases have pointed out that the focus is upon whether the jury may have been misled. See, Christian v. Gates Rubber Co. (1969), 145 Ind.App. 229, 250 N.E.2d 486; Paxton v. Ferrell (1969), 144 Ind.App. 124, 244 N.E.2d 439; Summers v. Weyer (1967), 141 Ind.App. 176, 226 N.E.2d 904.
As we pointed out in our opinion, the damage to Chrysler, if any, occurred from the unrebutted testimony of York rather than from any inference to be drawn from the failure of Davis to appear as a witness. It does not appear that the verdict might have been different had the instruction not been given and we reiterate that the error was harmless.
Nevertheless, we recognize that our statement regarding 'determining whether the error is likely to have influenced the verdict' supports a broader connotation. Accordingly we modify our opinion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harp v. Indiana Dept. of Highways
...Ind.App. 152, 374 N.E.2d 1173, Chrysler Corp. v. Alumbaugh (1976), 168 Ind.App. 363, 342 N.E.2d 908, modified on other grounds, 168 Ind.App. 363, 348 N.E.2d 654). Pleadings require technical exactness, Kaster v. Heinrich (1986), Ind.App., 489 N.E.2d 152, 155, however, the Indiana Trial Rule......
-
Thiele v. Faygo Beverage, Inc.
...on theory of strict liability in tort); Chrysler Corp. v. Alumbaugh (1976), 168 Ind.App. 363, 342 N.E.2d 908,modified on other grounds 348 N.E.2d 654 (judgment on jury verdict for plaintiff affirmed on theory of strict liability in tort); Perfection Paint & Color Co. v. Konduris (1970), 147......
-
Breese v. State
...to the witness. See Chrysler Corp. v. Alumbaugh (3d Dist .1976) 168 Ind.App. 363, 342 N.E.2d 908, modified on other grounds, 168 Ind.App. 363, 348 N.E.2d 654. The economic interests of an employee have been held to make him "peculiarly available" to his employer, 29 Am.Jur.2d Evidence Sec. ......
-
Osborne v. International Harvester Co.
...P.2d 83 (1970). The Indiana Court of Appeals took a similar view in Chrysler Corp. v. Alumbaugh, 168 Ind.App. 363, 342 N.E.2d 908, 348 N.E.2d 654 (1976). It held that occupants of other vehicles operating on the highway in close proximity to a defective and therefore unreasonably dangerous ......