ILNews

Trial court erred in instructing jury in negligence case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A divided Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial in a case alleging a product was negligently designed, with the majority finding the trial court erred when it instructed the jury on the rebuttable presumption under Indiana Code 34-20-5-1.

Anthony Wade, an employee of Richmond Power, was rendered a quadriplegic in 1997 when he fell 12 feet out of a double-man bucket attached to a company truck when trying to exit the bucket. Two years later, he sued Terex-Telelect, the manufacturer of the bucket, claiming the company was negligent under the Indiana Products Liability Act in the design of the bucket. He argued that the company should not have been able to sell a bucket liner that contained no molded interior step.

Terex presented evidence that it complied with Richmond Power’s specifications for the product desired and that it was manufactured to meet the standards in place at the time of production. Wade made a motion for a directed verdict, arguing there was a lack of evidence to support the company’s claim that its product was in conformity with the generally recognized state of the art applicable to the safety of the product, and he objected to Terex’s tendered final jury instruction pertaining to the rebuttable presumption allowed under the act that a product is not defective if it was made state of the art and in compliance with government standards. Both motions were overruled and the trial court adopted the tendered instruction. The jury allocated zero fault to Terex and 100 percent fault to Wade.

In Anthony Wade v. Terex-Telelect, Inc., No. 29A05-1101-CT-72, Judges James Kirsch and Nancy Vaidik found Wade was prejudiced by the instruction of the jury as to the rebuttable presumption because it was unsupported by relevant evidence and went to the very heart of the case. Terex didn’t present sufficient evidence to support its contention that the liner at issue complied with applicable government regulations.

Judge Cale Bradford dissented on this point, disagreeing that the trial court abused its discretion in instructing the jury regarding the rebuttable presumption that a product is non-defective if it conforms to applicable government regulations.

The three judges agreed that Terex was not entitled to a “state of the art” instruction and that a retrial would be necessary based on this error.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT