Helman v. Barnett's Bail Bonds, Inc.
| Decision Date | 09 August 2021 |
| Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CT-1526 |
| Citation | 175 N.E.3d 826 |
| Parties | Atta Belle HELMAN and Larry Dwayne Helman, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. BARNETT'S BAIL BONDS, INC., Tadd S. Martin, Daniel S. Foster, Michael C. Thomas, and Lexington National Insurance Corporation, Appellees-Defendants. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellants: Michael P. Misch, Bradley P. Colborn, Anderson, Agostino & Keller, P.C., South Bend, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee – Lexington National Ins.: Brian J. Paul, Angela Kelver Hall, Jason M. Rauch, Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee – Barnett's Bail Bonds, Inc.: Jay A. Rigdon, Rockhill Pinnick, LLP, Warsaw, Indiana
[1] Atta Belle Helman and Larry Dwayne Helman (collectively "the Helmans") filed a complaint against Barnett's
Bail Bonds, Inc. ("Barnett's"), Tadd S. Martin, Daniel S. Foster, Michael C. Thomas, and Lexington National Insurance Corporation ("Lexington") (collectively "the Defendants") after Atta's son Gary Helman was shot and killed during an attempt by bail bondsmen to apprehend him on outstanding warrants. The Helmans’ complaint included multiple allegations of negligence and intentional torts against the bail bondsmen and vicarious liability against Barnett's and Lexington. Following a four-day trial, a jury found for the Defendants. The Helmans appeal and raise three issues for our review:
[2] We affirm.
[3] The parties have stipulated to the following relevant facts:
Appellants’ App. Vol. 2 at 38-40.
[4] On August 25, 2014, Staley went to the Helman residence at 9174 Doswell Boulevard in Cromwell. During Staley's interview with Gary and Atta, Foster, Martin, and Thomas conducted surveillance of the house while they were parked on a neighbor's property nearby, and, at some point, they saw Gary come outside and go back inside. Atta told Staley that she knew that some bail bondsmen had come by the house in June pretending to be interested in buying it. Atta told Staley that she had a gun and would use it to blow up a propane tank on the property if they returned. After the interview, Staley shared what she had learned with Martin in a telephone call.
[5] A short time after Staley left, Foster, Martin, and Thomas approached the house. The plan was for Foster to knock on the front door, and Martin and Thomas would be outside the back door to intercept Gary if he came out that way. However, when Martin got to the back of the house, he saw Atta outside the back door. Martin grabbed Atta, and then he and Thomas attempted to subdue her. At that point, Larry shot Martin twice. Larry then "charg[ed]" at Martin, and Martin shot Larry. Tr. Vol. 5 at 168. Gary came outside and shot Martin three times. Martin then shot and killed Gary.
[6] In June 2016, the Helmans filed a complaint for damages, and they twice amended their complaint, the second time in February 2018. In that complaint, the Helmans alleged multiple intentional torts, including assault and trespass, against Martin, Thomas, and Foster; negligence per se by Martin, Thomas, and Foster; and vicarious liability against Martin, Thomas, Foster, Barnett's, and Lexington. Prior to trial, the trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for the Defendants "as to all [of] Plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims." Lexington's App. Vol. 2 at 37. Also prior to trial, the Helmans filed a motion in limine seeking in relevant part to prohibit evidence "[r]egarding any criminal proceedings, criminal charges, convictions, or the lack of said charges and convictions in relation to any of the Defendants for their conduct at issue in this case." Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 61. The trial court granted that motion. The trial court also granted Lexington's motion to bifurcate the trial in order to try the liability and damages issues separately.
[7] On the second day of the liability phase of the trial, before the jury was brought in for the day's session, Lexington brought up the fact that the Helmans intended to introduce into evidence a videorecording of the "jailhouse interview" with Thomas, who was wearing handcuffs during the interview. Tr. Vol. 4 at 5. Lexington argued to the trial court that the admission of the jailhouse interview would "give a perception that [Thomas had been] potentially charged with a crime," and the court agreed and stated that the parties should stipulate to the fact that Thomas had not been charged with a crime. Id. at 6. The Helmans responded that they would not stipulate to that fact as it violated the court's order on their motion in limine and was inconsistent with case law. This exchange followed:
[8] After the Helmans introduced into evidence Thomas’ jailhouse interview and it was played for the jury, the trial court instructed the jury as follows:
Michael Thomas was not charged with any criminal offenses arising from this incident. However, the burden of proof, this has been discussed is different in criminal cases. The burden of proof on the [S]tate there is beyond a reasonable doubt. You'll be instructed later on this. We've already talked about it. The burden of proof in this case for the Plaintiffs is to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Michael Thomas was responsible for criminal conduct as alleged.
[9] At the conclusion of the liability phase of the jury trial, the parties worked together to come up with verdict forms to submit to the jury. In the end, the parties submitted forms with defense verdicts for each defendant, as well as thirty-one pages of forms for plaintiffs’ verdicts, with each page asking the jury to find each defendant liable or not on each allegation. Before the verdict forms were submitted to the jury, the Helmans addressed the trial court as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial