Automobile accident involving police officer

May 25, 2011
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


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?