ILNews

DTCI: Decisons encourage comparative fault arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

DTCI-TyraAs Jerry Padgett and I discussed in our commentary, “Causation as a case-dispositive issue” (Indiana Lawyer, Oct. 14, 2009), the Indiana Court of Appeals has held in favor of summary judgment for defendants in instances in which the plaintiff’s negligence clearly intervened whatever fault may have been assigned to the defendant. See, e.g., Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 837 N.E.2d 509 (Ind.App. 2005), reh’g denied, trans. denied; and Witmat Development Corp. v. Dickison, 907 N.E.2d 170 (Ind.App. 2009).

Two recent decisions by the Court of Appeals demonstrate what we hope is a continuing trend of expecting plaintiffs to exercise personal responsibility. In each case, the court absolved the defendant of responsibility for harm to the plaintiff that was clearly the result of the plaintiff’s poor choices.

In Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 903 N.E.2d 117 (Ind.App. 2009), transfer granted Sept. 11, 2009, Caesars brought a collection action against Genevieve Kephart, who signed six counter checks totaling $125,000, which was the amount she lost while gambling at Caesars in one night. Kephart counterclaimed, alleging Caesars knew she was a compulsive gambler, marketed specifically to her, and enticed her to come to its casino to gamble.

Caesars moved to dismiss Kephart’s counterclaim for failure to state a claim. The trial court denied Caesars’ motion. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Indiana’s common law does not recognize a private right of action for negligently allowing or enticing a compulsive gambler to engage in lawful gambling.

Judge Paul D. Mathias’ opinion commented that a retailer has no duty to refuse to sell merchandise to a compulsive shopper, and that this case is “more akin to that of a participant injured during a sporting activity, than to that of a traditional negligence plaintiff.” The opinion also observed that Kephart had not sought help for her compulsion until after this incident.

In a recent unpublished decision in a legal malpractice claim, Ridge v. Lark, No. 51A01-0906-CV-300, Jan. 27, 2010), the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment against a plaintiff who persistently ignored his attorney’s advice.

Attorney Matthew Lark represented Ridge in a claim for the death of Ridge’s wife in a motor vehicle accident. Lark obtained a $650,000 settlement for Ridge in mediation. Lark and co-counsel repeatedly recommended a structured settlement to Ridge and also introduced Ridge to investment advisors who could assist in the use of a settlement. In addition, the defendant trucking company brought a structured settlement specialist to the mediation. Ridge rejected all of this advice and instead insisted on receiving his $400,000 portion of the settlement in a lump sum. The same day he received the disbursement, Ridge gave $282,108.45 of the proceeds to his employer, Robert Melton of Melton’s Tree Service.

Thereafter, Ridge sued Lark for legal malpractice. Ridge claimed that he was an incapacitated person, and therefore Lark was negligent in relation to the distribution of the settlement proceeds. After a four-day trial, the trial court found that Ridge was not “incapacitated” and entered judgment against Ridge. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Among other things, the trial court had found that Ridge had a broad range of computer- and Internet-related skills, that he had successfully represented himself in the past in a marital dissolution and in negotiating a plea on criminal charges, and that he had long maintained employment, including as a supervisor.

Also, the trial judge concluded from observing Ridge on the witness stand that he was “street smart.” Favorable opinions about Ridge’s competence were shared by other witnesses at trial who knew Ridge.

Trial defense counsel should take these decisions as further encouragement to forcefully argue comparative fault not only at trial but also through dispositive motions, where appropriate.•

__________

Kevin C. Tyra focuses his practice in insurance defense and insurance coverage at The Tyra Law Firm, P.C. (www.tyralaw.net) in Indianapolis. He is a member of the board of directors of DTCI. The views expressed are those of the author.

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT