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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT