Durham v. U-HAUL INTERN.
| Decision Date | 13 January 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-9811-CV-940.,49A02-9811-CV-940. |
| Citation | 722 N.E.2d 355 |
| Parties | Barry DURHAM and Bill Wade, on behalf of the Estate of Kathy Wade, and Barry Durham as natural guardian for Amy Durham and Jason Durham, and Bill Wade, individually, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, et al., Appellees-Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Scott A. Benkie, Benkie & Crawford, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant.
Rodney V. Taylor, Christopher & Taylor, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellee.
The Estate of Kathy Wade appeals the trial court's partial summary judgment denying punitive damages in the estate's wrongful death action against U-Haul International, Inc. and the other defendants. The defendants cross-appeal the portion of the judgment allowing Bill Wade's loss of consortium action to go forward, including the punitive damages claim in that action. The appeal and cross-appeal present two issues:
I. Whether the estate is entitled to pursue a punitive damages claim in its wrongful death action; and
II. Whether the spouse of the decedent (Bill Wade) is entitled to pursue his action for loss of consortium, including his punitive damages claim.
We reverse the trial court's judgment regarding the estate's punitive damages claim, and affirm the judgment regarding Bill Wade's claims.
On a summer afternoon in 1995, Kathy Wade was riding in a car through a construction zone on Interstate 74. Behind Wade's car was a U-Haul truck and trailer. Suddenly, the U-Haul driver lost control and crashed into the back of Wade's car. The crash impact hurled the car toward oncoming highway traffic, straight into a truck. Wade died before rescue teams could arrive. Wade's husband, Bill, and her estate filed a complaint against U-Haul, alleging that U-Haul was grossly negligent in maintaining its rental vehicles. The plaintiffs also named the highway construction firms as defendants, alleging that the firms were grossly negligent in organizing the construction zone. Both plaintiffs seek punitive damages, but they base their claims on separate liability theories: the estate asserts a wrongful death claim, while the husband asserts a loss of consortium claim.
One of the construction defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the husband's loss of consortium claim and on both plaintiffs' punitive damages claims. Several other defendants, including U-Haul, joined in the motion. The trial court granted the motion in part and denied it in part, finding:
The estate appeals the trial court's judgment denying its punitive damages claim. The defendants cross-appeal the portion of the judgment that allowed the husband's claims to proceed.
In a summary judgment appeal, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. Wickey v. Sparks, 642 N.E.2d 262, 265 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied. Accordingly, this court examines the evidentiary submissions, determines whether there are any genuine issues of material fact, and decides whether the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). In this appeal and cross-appeal the factual issues are not in dispute. Rather, the appeals turn on legal issues concerning punitive damages. As such, we consider only whether the trial court erred in its application of the law to the plaintiffs' claims.
The plaintiffs contend that punitive damages should be recoverable under the Indiana Wrongful Death statute, IC XX-XX-X-X (formerly codified as IC 34-1-1-2). The plaintiffs point out that punitive damages are available in personal injury actions, and argue that such damages should be available in wrongful death actions in order to maintain "symmetry and integrity" in the tort system. Appellant's Brief at 3. In other words, the plaintiffs contend that a defendant in a wrongful death action should face the same risk as a defendant in a personal injury action. Without liability for punitive damages, a wrongful death defendant has less litigation risk than a personal injury defendant. This imbalance in risk is illogical, according to the plaintiffs, and as such they conclude that punitive damages should be available in wrongful death actions.
In response, the defendants assert that Indiana precedent precludes punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The defendants cite several cases in support of this maxim. The plaintiffs counter that none of these cases are binding upon this court.
The early common law had no remedy for wrongful death. See STUART M. SPEISER ET AL., RECOVERY FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND INJURY § 1.1 (1992). To rectify the common law, England in 1846 adopted a wrongful death statute that authorized personal representatives to sue for losses incurred by the families of persons killed in accidents. Id. at § 1.8 (Lord Campbell's Act, 9 & 10 Vict. Ch. 93 (Eng.)). Every state in America recognized the propriety of the English statute and adopted its own version of the wrongful death act. Id., Appendix A (collecting statutes). Indiana has three wrongful death statutes, each pertaining to a different class of decedents and each containing different descriptions of recoverable damages.
The plaintiffs in this case bring their action under Indiana's general wrongful death statute, IC XX-XX-X-X. The statute authorizes the personal representative of a decedent's estate to bring an action on behalf of the decedent's family, among others. The damages language in the statute is inexact, perhaps because the statute evolved from Indiana's first wrongful death law adopted in the mid-1800s. In this appeal we must determine whether the inexact language in the general wrongful death statute allows recovery of punitive damages.
The statute has never expressly precluded punitive damages. When first adopted, the statute limited all damages by a monetary cap. See generally Wiersma Trucking v. Pfaff, 643 N.E.2d 909, 911 (Ind.Ct. App.1994) adopted on trans., 678 N.E.2d 110 (Ind.1997) (). The legislature amended the statute several times between 1880 and 1965 but always maintained the cap concept; only the amount of the cap changed. In 1965, however, the legislature abandoned the cap, replacing it with the broad provision that controls damages in general wrongful death actions today:
"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 earning[s]."
IC XX-XX-X-X (emphasis added).
The breadth of this damages provision becomes even more apparent when compared to the provisions of Indiana's other two wrongful death statutes. The statute governing the wrongful death of children contains an exclusive list of the damages recoverable by the child's parents or guardians. IC XX-XX-X-X(e). Punitive damages are not in the list, so are not recoverable. Nor are punitive damages recoverable under Indiana's third and newest wrongful death statute—an act effective January 1, 2000 allowing wrongful death actions on behalf of non-dependent survivors of unmarried adults, i.e., parents of adult decedents, or adult offspring of decedents. The new act expressly precludes punitive damages. 1999 Ind. Acts 413, IC XX-XX-X-X(c)(2).
The careful attention given to the damages provision in the newest statute indicates that our legislators are mindful of the utility of precision in damages clauses. At the time they adopted the new statute, the legislators readily could have revised the general statute to clarify its damages provision.1 As it stands, the damages provision could reasonably be interpreted to allow punitive damages. By preserving the broad damages provision in the general wrongful death statute, the legislature has charged the courts with the responsibility for construing the provision. When a statute is susceptible to more than one interpretation, the courts must clarify the ambiguity by construing the statute. Amoco Production Co. v. Laird, 622 N.E.2d 912, 915 (Ind.1993). U-Haul and the other defendants argue that we must strictly construe the provision because it is in derogation of the common law. Although the defendants' recitation of the strict construction rule is accurate, the rule does not necessarily require exclusion of punitive damages in wrongful death actions. The strict construction rule requires us to "presume that the legislature did not intend to make any change in the common law beyond those declared either in express terms or by unmistakable implication." South Bend Community Schools Corp. v. Widawski, 622 N.E.2d 160, 162 (Ind.1993) (emphasis added).
To interpret the phrase "including, but not limited to" as a preclusion on all damages other than those listed would be to ignore the unmistakable implication of the phrase. Had the legislature intended to limit wrongful death damages to the aspects enumerated in the statute, the legislature would not have used the phrase "including, but not limited to." We cannot use the guise of the strict construction rule to ignore the legislature's clear intent to allow damages other than those listed in the statute. Rather, we must construe the provision to effectuate the legislature's intent. Sullivan v. Day, 681 N.E.2d 713, 717 (Ind.1997).
Further, the damages provision is a relatively new amendment to the 150 year-old wrongful death statute. Compare Ind. Code Ann. § 2-404 (Burns 1946) and Ind. Code Ann. § 2-404 (Burns 1967)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Durham ex rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International
...of statutory construction, case law, and policy support recovery of punitive damages in a wrongful death claim. Durham v. U-Haul Int'l, 722 N.E.2d 355 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Three issues are presented: (1) whether Indiana's wrongful death statute allows recovery of punitive damages; (2) if not,......
-
Burton v. Estate of Davis
...Steindler, 629 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind.1994). 9. We note that a recent Court of Appeals opinion discussing this issue, Durham v. U-Haul International, 722 N.E.2d 355 (Ind.Ct. App.2000), has been accepted on transfer and cannot be cited as authority. However, the thorough analysis included in the o......
- In re Paternity of EMP, 45A04-9908-JV-346.
-
Ind. PATIENT'S Comp. FUND v. BROWN
...but noted that they were not explicitly prohibited by the statute. See Durham, 745 N.E.2d at 759 (discussing Durham v. U-Haul Int'l, 722 N.E.2d 355, 358 (Ind.Ct.App.2000)). We concluded that public policy supported allowing punitive damage awards under the GWDS. See id. at 758 (discussing D......