ILNews

Appellate court orders reinstatement of jury verdict

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Finding a trial judge erred when granting a new trial because he didn’t make specific findings in setting aside a jury verdict, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the lower court and ordered the jury verdict reinstated.

In American Family Home Insurance Co. v. Rick Bonta, No. 64A04-1008-CT-516, Rick Bonta sued Laura Morales and his insurer American Family Home Insurance Co. after he was injured in an accident with uninsured Morales. At trial, the jury found Bonta 55 percent at fault for his damages and Morales 45 percent at fault. Bonta filed a motion for judgment on the evidence and asked for a judgment in his favor or a new trial. The trial court set aside the jury verdict and granted the new trial, finding the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial judge noted he was acting as a “thirteenth juror” by ordering the new trial.

After determining that American Family had standing to appeal the order, the Court of Appeals had to decide whether the trial judge made his decision under Indiana Trial Rule 50(C) or Rule 59(J). If under 50(C), the judge may grant a new trial and doesn’t have to support the findings, but if the judge made the decision under Rule 59(J), the judge must support the decision with written findings.

The order didn’t specify whether the trial court granted the motion based on Rule 50(C) or 59(J). The appellate court concluded that the judge’s order was granting relief pursuant to 59(J). The order said that the jury verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that the judge was acting as a 13th juror when ordering the new trial, but the order didn’t include special findings or other explanation, wrote Judge Patricia Riley.

The judges concluded that the proper remedy in this situation, citing Walker v. Pullen, 943 N.E.2d 349 (Ind. 2011), is to reinstate the jury verdict.

“While we understand that this result may seem harsh as a litigant may be disadvantaged not through his own fault but because a trial court failed to follow all the precedential requirements, we are not the proper court to formulate an alternative,” wrote Judge Riley.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT