ILNews

Automobile accident involving police officer

May 25, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Automobile Accident involving police officer

Rolla Trent, individually and as administrator of the estate of Shirley Trent, deceased v. city of Peru

Miami Circuit Court No. 52C01-0503-CT-145

Injuries: wrongful death

Date: Oct. 18, 2010

Judge or jury trial: Jury trial

Judge: Hon. Christopher Goff, special judge

Disposition: Verdict for plaintiff

Plaintiff attorney: Jason A. Shartzer and Richard A. Cook

Defendant Attorney: Robert T. Keen, Jr.

Insurance: Governmental Interinsurance Exchange

Case Information: In the early morning hours of Dec. 21, 2004, Shirley Trent was delivering newspapers from her vehicle in the city of Peru in Miami County. At about the same time, Officer Rodney Richard of the Peru Police Department was attending a shift meeting when he overheard a 911 call involving a suicidal male who had ingested an overdose of aspirin.

Richard recognized that the 911 call originated from his parents’ home and discovered that the suicidal male was his brother. He asked his supervisor for permission to respond to the call. After being given permission, Richard left the Peru Police Department for his parents’ home which was more than 24 miles away.

As Richard was traveling on Strawtown Pike Road in Peru, he crested a hill as Trent was delivering a newspaper at the base of the same hill. Richard’s vehicle struck Trent’s vehicle head-on. The impact took place in Richard’s lane of travel.

Trent suffered massive blunt trauma injuries including a fractured vertebrae at the base of her head and trauma to her brain, which ultimately resulted in her death on Jan. 1, 2005. Trent’s husband brought a wrongful death action against the defendant, city of Peru, and therefore the claim was governed under the rules and restrictions of the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

The defendant argued that Trent was contributorily negligent because she was driving her vehicle in the wrong lane and therefore the plaintiff’s recovery is barred. However, the plaintiff also alleged in the complaint that Richard engaged in willful and wanton conduct which, if proven, does not bar recovery for the plaintiff even if there is contributory negligence.

Prior to trial, the court granted the defendant’s motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages. At trial, Master Trooper Earl McCullough, the accident reconstructionist from the Indiana State Police, testified that Richard was traveling at least 94 miles per hour when he crested the hill before the impact. In addition, Richard testified that he had intentionally blacked out his speedometer because he did not like the glare it produced and therefore he did not know how fast he was driving.

There was additional evidence that Richard did not have his siren on at the time he crested the hill. At the conclusion of the liability phase of the trial, the Miami County jury returned a verdict finding that the city of Peru through its agent, Richard, was liable for the collision. After the verdict in favor of the plaintiff as to liability and prior to the commencement of the damages phase, the case was resolved in an amount equal to the cap for liability under the Indiana Tort Claim Act.•

– Jason A. Shartzer

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT