Hockema v. J.S.
| Decision Date | 08 August 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 91A02-0409-CV-748.,91A02-0409-CV-748. |
| Citation | 832 N.E.2d 537 |
| Parties | Anne HOCKEMA and Stanley Hockema, Appellants-Defendants, v. J.S., by his Natural Parents Eric Secrest and Merri Nicollette Secrest; E.S., by her Natural Parents Eric Secrest and Merri Nicollette Secrest; and Eric Secrest and Merri Nicollette Secrest, Appellees-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James A. Goodin, James R. Browne, Jr., Goodin Abernathy & Miller, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Appellants.
Robert Leirer Justice, Logansport, Elizabeth A. Justice, Crawfordsville, IN, for Appellees.
Seventeen-year-old Anne Hockema and her father Stanley Hockema appeal the trial court's grant of additur after the jury found Jacob Secrest to be 66.75% at fault and awarded $0 damages. Because under our comparative fault scheme Jacob was barred from recovering for his damages and his parents' claim for medical expenses are derivative claims, we conclude that the trial court erred by allowing the parents to recover 33.25% of Jacob's stipulated medical expenses. Consequently, we reverse and remand with instructions to reinstate the jury's verdict.1
In September 2001, Anne was driving along Hanawalt Road in White County, Indiana. As she was driving, eight-year-old Jacob Secrest darted out into the road and collided with Hockema's vehicle. Jacob's nine-year-old sister, Erica Secrest, witnessed the collision, and Jacob's mother, Merri Secrest, came running out of her parents' house to assist Jacob immediately after the collision. Jacob's father, Eric Secrest, was not present at the scene of the accident. Jacob was transported to the hospital by ambulance with his mother accompanying him. As a result of the impact, Jacob broke his right elbow and collarbone, which required him to undergo surgery and attend physical therapy.
The Secrests filed a complaint for damages against Anne and Stanley2 (collectively "the Hockemas"), which sought recovery for medical expenses; permanent injuries; emotional distress; loss of services; and pain and suffering. A jury trial ensued during which the parties stipulated that Jacob's medical expenses totaled $38,708.44. Following the presentation of evidence, the parties argued final jury instructions to the judge. Included among the final instructions were the following verdict instructions and verdict form:
VERDICT INSTRUCTIONS
If you find the Defendant is not at fault, then your verdict must be for the Defendants, and no further deliberation of the jury is necessary. (Use Verdict Form A-1.)
If however you find there is fault on behalf of the Defendant, Anne Hockema, you are required to apportion the fault on a percentage basis between Jacob Secrest and Anne Hockema to determine whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover damages, and if so, the amount of such recovery. You may not apportion fault to any other person or entity.
You will therefore determine the comparative fault issues in this case as follows:
First, you must determine the percentage of fault, if any, of Jacob Secrest and of Anne Hockema in the proximate causation of the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages. These percentages must total 100 percent.
[I]f you find Anne Hockema is at fault and Jacob Secrest's fault is greater than 50 percent, then you must return your verdict for the Defendants and against Jacob Secrest. No further deliberation is required as to Jacob Secrest. (Use Verdict Form A-2.)
However, if you find that Jacob Secrest's fault is 50 percent or less, then you must determine the total amount of damages Jacob Secrest is entitled to recover, if any, without regard to fault. Then you must multiply Jacob Secrest's total damages by Anne Hockema's percentage of fault and return your verdict for Jacob Secrest and against the Defendants in the amount of the product of that multiplication. (Use Verdict Form B-1.)
If you find that Anne Hockema is at fault at all, [then] you must also determine the total amount of damages Eric Secrest, Merri Secrest, and Erica Secrest are each entitled to recover, if any, without regard to fault.
Then you must multiply Eric Secrest, Merri Secrest, and Erica Secrest's total damages by Anne Hockema's percentage of fault and return your verdicts for each of Eric Secrest, Merri Secrest, and Erica Secrest and against the Defendants in the amount of the product of that multiplication. (Use Verdict Form B-2.)
The verdict forms provided to you by the Court will help guide you through this process.
Verdict Form B-2
We, the Jury, find for Plaintiff, Eric Secrest, and we assess the percentages of fault as follows:
Plaintiff Jacob Secrest ______ %
Defendant Anne Hockema ______ %
TOTAL 100%
We, further find that the total amounts of damages which the Plaintiff, Eric Secrest, is entitled to recover, disregarding fault, is the sum of $_______. (Enter this amount below as Total Damages.)
We, the Jury, now find for the Plaintiff, Eric Secrest, and against the Defendants, Anne Hockema and Stanley Hockema, in the sum of:
Total Damages $ ______
Defendants' percentage of fault x ______
Verdict Amount $ ______
Id. at 46 (italics in original). The Hockemas objected to the Verdict Instructions and Verdict Form B-2:
We would object to the Verdict Instructions and Verdict Form for the reason that . . . as written the verdict instructions and the verdict form allows [sic] for purely derivative claims of . . . Eric, Merri, and Eri[c]a Secrest, to survive, even though the jury would determine that . . . Jacob Secrest was . . . fifty one percent [or] more at fault. And for that reason we think it's an inaccurate . . . statement of the law and would result in an improper, an incorrect . . . verdict.
Tr. p. 569. The trial court overruled the objection.
The jury returned a defense verdict. In particular, the jury found Jacob to be 66.75% at fault, Anne to be 33.25% at fault, and awarded the Secrests $0 in damages.
The Secrests filed a motion to correct errors seeking additur or a new trial, in which it claimed that the jury erred by not awarding Jacob's parents damages for a percentage of the stipulated medical expenses. The Hockemas responded by asserting that the Secrests "failed to take into account the expenses and damage claims made by the family members were derivative to Jacob's primary cause of action," Appellant's App. p. 54 (emphasis in original), and consequently, "the `parent' plaintiffs cannot prevail if a jury decides against the `child's' claim." Id. at 56 (emphasis in original). Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court entered judgment in favor of the Secrests for $12,780.56, which is 33.25% of the stipulated amount of medical expenses. In its Order,4 the trial court stated:
The Court instructed the Jury that there was a stipulation as to the medical expenses incurred by the parents in the sum of Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eight Dollars Forty-four Cents ($38,708.44), and that the Jury in this matter found that the Defendant, Ann[e] Hockema, was thirty-three point two-five percent (33.25%) negligent in the action.
The Court had previously instructed the Jury that the parent's right of recovery for their medical expenses was not contingent on the child's right of recovery for his injuries.
Therefore, the Court finds that the parents should be entitled to their stipulated expenses of thirty-three point two-five percent (33.25%) of Thirty-eight Thousand Seven Hundred Eight Dollars Forty-four Cents ($38,708.44).
The Court directs that the jury verdict be modified in this matter that the Court now orders a judgment entered against the Defendant, Anne Hockema, in the sum of Twelve Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Dollars Fifty-six Cents ($12,870.56).
Id. at 6-7. The Hockemas now appeal.
The Hockemas argue that the trial court erred by granting the Secrests' request for additur following the jury's award of $0 damages to the Secrests. A trial court has broad discretion to correct error. Childress v. Buckler, 779 N.E.2d 546, 550 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). We review a trial court's decision to grant a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion, and reversal will only occur when the trial court's decision was against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, together with the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Id. Additionally, a trial court's abuse of discretion may result when its decision is without reason or is based upon impermissible considerations. Id.
The Hockemas claim that the trial court abused its discretion when it granted the Secrests' motion to correct error pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 59(J)(5) and awarded $12,870.56 to the Secrests notwithstanding the jury's verdict of $0. Trial Rule 59(J)(5) provides:
The court, if it determines that prejudicial or harmful error has been committed, shall take such action as will cure the error, including without limitation the following with respect to all or some of the parties and all or some of the errors: . . . (5) In the case of excessive or inadequate damages, enter final judgment on the evidence for the amount of the proper damages, grant a new trial, or grant a new trial subject to additur or remittitur.
Ind. Trial Rule 59(J)(5). This remedy is only available when the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict as a matter of law. Childress, 779 N.E.2d at 550.
Trial courts must afford juries great latitude in making damage award determinations. Id. A verdict must be upheld if the award determination falls within the bounds of the evidence. Id. Additionally, a trial court may only reverse a jury's award determination "when it is apparent from a review of the evidence that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moore v. Fargo Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 1
...we do not choose to follow this outlier decision. [¶ 15] We think the decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Hockema v. J.S., 832 N.E.2d 537 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), is persuasive. In Hockema, a child and his parents brought a personal injury action against the driver of the car that struck ......
-
Manson v. Keglovits
...Indiana has adopted the Comparative Fault Act, found at Ind.Code §§ 34–51–2, which went into effect in 1985. Hockema v. J.S., 832 N.E.2d 537, 541–542 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (citing Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104, 107 (Ind.2002) ), reh'g denied, trans. denied. By adopting the......
-
Webber v. Butner
...comparative fault statute, that meant Webber recovered nothing. See Ind. Code §§ 34-51-2-7(b)(2) & 34-51-2-6 ; Hockema v. J.S. , 832 N.E.2d 537, 542 (Ind. App. 2005) ("The Indiana statute is a type of modified fifty percent comparative fault law. ... Thus, if a claimant is deemed to be more......
-
In re Estate of Wheat, 31A01-0601-CV-28.
...logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it, together with the inferences that can be drawn therefrom. Hockema v. J.S., 832 N.E.2d 537, 541 (Ind. Ct.App.2005), reh`g denied, trans. The PR contends that because the trial court initially set a hearing on the motion to correct er......