ILNews

DTCI: What is the proper jury instruction on the state-of-the-art presumption?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

This is a bait-and-switch article. It applies to instructing the jury on the continuing effect of rebuttable presumptions in all civil cases. It just so happens that one of the best examples is the presumption of no liability under Indiana’s Product Liability Act. That presumption is broader than just the state-of-the-art defense.

In a product liability action, there is a rebuttable presumption that the product that caused the physical harm was not defective and that the manufacturer or seller of it was not negligent if before its sale by the manufacturer: (1) it conformed to the generally recognized state of the art applicable to safety of the product at the time the product was designed, manufactured, packaged and labeled; or (2) it complied with applicable codes, standards, regulations or specifications established, adopted, promulgated or approved by the United States or by Indiana, or by any agency of either. Ind. Code 34-20-5-1.

lienhoop Lienhoop

As the statute indicates, the presumption is rebuttable. There has been a long-standing disagreement in the common law about a rebuttable presumption’s effect once evidence contradicting it has been introduced. See Schultz v. Ford Motor Co., 857 N.E.2d 977, 982 (Ind. 2006) (excellent discussion of this disagreement).

Schultz claimed his Ford’s defective roof left him a quadriplegic after a roll-over accident. A verdict for Ford was reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found the jury instruction on the I.C. 34-20-5-1 rebuttable presumption legally incorrect because it believed the presumption should have dropped from the case once contrary evidence was introduced.

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, which vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and then affirmed the defense verdict. Id. at 979. The Supreme Court held that Indiana Rule of Evidence 301 means just what it says: A presumption shall have continuing effect even though evidence contrary to the presumption is introduced. Id. at 984.

In federal civil cases, state law governs the effect of a presumption regarding a claim or defense for which state law supplies the rule of decision. F.R.E. 302. So Indiana’s state law that the rebuttable presumption has continuing effect should apply to cases based on Indiana’s Product Liability Act that are filed in federal court.

In essence, the contested instruction in Shultz told the jury that if it found Ford proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the vehicle complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Standard 216, then it may presume the vehicle was not defective and that Ford was not negligent in its design; however, the plaintiffs could rebut this presumption by evidence tending to show that the vehicle was defective. Id. at 979.

It is interesting that, even though the statute uses the word “presumption,” even though IRE 301 uses the word presumption, and even though the presumption has continuing effect, in Schultz the Indiana Supreme Court found that the jury instruction regarding this presumption should not have used the words “presume” or “presumption.”

The Indiana Supreme Court in Shultz was concerned that use of the words “presume” or “presumption” might make a jury think the presumption is conclusive. That is a little perplexing since the instruction also told the jury that the presumption could be rebutted. Id. at 986. The Shultz court did not directly indicate that the word “rebutted” was vague, ambiguous or needed to be defined. However, instructing the jury that the presumption could be rebutted obviously did not alleviate the danger the court saw in using the words “presume” or “presumption.”

Even though the jury instruction in Shultz did use the words “presume” and “presumption,” the Indiana Supreme Court found that the instruction was not reversible error. Id. at 987. This was because the words were not used in a “legal or technical sense” and because there was no language to the effect that “the law presumes … .” Id. Instead, the Shultz court thought a typical juror would find use of presume and presumption in this instruction synonymous with “infer” or “assume.” Id. Also, the court found that the instruction was substantively “balanced, i.e. fair to both sides.” Id. As such, the instruction gave continuing effect to the statutory presumption in I.C. 34-20-5-1 and did not unfairly prejudice the plaintiffs. Id.

Even though the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the defense verdict in Shultz, there should be no mistake that Schultz gave a warning against using the words “presume” and “presumption” in a jury instruction on a rebuttable presumption. Schultz specifically held that “a presumption is properly given ‘continuing effect’ under the last sentence of Indiana Evidence Rule 301 by the trial court instructing the jury that when a basic fact is proven, the jury may infer the existence of a presumed fact.” Id. at 985 (emphasis added). In fact, it started the very next section with “As a general matter then, Indiana Evidence Rule 301 authorizes a court to instruct a jury on permissible inferences that may be drawn from the basic facts that give rise to presumptions … .”

So, just what is a proper jury instruction on the rebuttable presumption in Indiana’s Product Liability Act? There appears to be no Indiana Model Civil Instruction on it – or on presumptions in general.

The closest Indiana Model Civil Instruction may be the one for res ipsa loquitur. It uses the new phrase common in the Model Instructions of “the greater weight of the evidence” instead of “by a preponderance of the evidence.” While its comments do not refer to Shultz, it does follow its holding in four ways: (1) to the extent it uses “infer” instead of “presume;” (2) to the extent it does not use the word “presumption;” (3) to the extent it implies that the inference is not conclusive; and (4) to the extent it implies that the inference is continuing despite the introduction of contrary evidence.

The Indiana Model Civil Instruction on res ipsa locquitur provides:

There are certain situations in which the nature of an incident and the circumstances surrounding it lead to the reasonable belief that it would not have occurred unless someone did not use reasonable care.

If [plaintiff] proves all of the following by the greater weight of the evidence:

(1) [plaintiff] was [injured][harmed][damaged][as a result of][when] [here insert event which plaintiff claims was a responsible cause of injury/damage/harm];

(2) only the [defendant][defendant’s agent] controlled [insert name of instrumentality]; and

(3) under normal circumstances the [event]would not have occurred unless the [defendant][defendant’s agent] was negligent,

then you may infer that the incident resulted from [defendant]’s negligence. You may consider this inference with all of the other evidence in arriving at your verdict.

Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction 325 (emphasis added).

The last line of the Model res ipsa locquitur instruction is a simple and elegant way to say the presumption can be rebutted but has continuing effect. At least it would let counsel advocate such when going over the instruction with the jury in closing arguments. Spelling that out in greater detail will make it wordier but might lessen the chance of an incorrect interpretation by the jury.

For example, using Shultz and the Model res ipsa loquitur instruction as guides, a proper instruction on the state-of-the-art defense might be something like this:

If you find by the greater weight of the evidence that before the [H.I. product] was sold by [H.I. the manufacturer], the [H.I. product] conformed with the generally recognized state of the art applicable to the safety of the [H.I. product] at the time it was designed, manufactured, packaged, or labeled, then you may infer that the [H.I. product] was not defective and that [H.I. manufacturer and/or seller] [was/were] not negligent.

Evidence has been introduced that the [H.I. product] was defective [and/or] that the [H.I. manufacturer/seller] [was/were] negligent. You must decide if plaintiff has proved by a greater weight of the evidence that such evidence of defect or negligence overcomes the inference of no defect [and/or] no negligence.

A similar instruction should apply to all Indiana rebuttable presumptions. Of course, the particular wording of the instruction depends on the substantive law regarding what in particular is presumed and what in particular is required to rebut it.

Here is one used in a recent case regarding a plaintiff whose first language was not English. The plaintiff had signed documents in his workers’ compensation case that gave a version of the accident significantly different from the version he was asserting in his tort case. The basic presumption is that a person is presumed to understand and know the contents of a document he signs. The instruction was:

A person should read and understand a document before signing it. If [plaintiff] could not read it, he should have had it read to him. If [plaintiff] could not understand it, he should have it explained to him. If you find by the greater weight of the evidence that [H.I. plaintiff ] signed the [H.I. documents], then you may infer that [H.I. plaintiff ] understood those documents.

Evidence has been introduced to excuse or justify [plaintiff’s] failure to understand those documents. You must decide if [plaintiff] has proved by a greater weight of the evidence that the evidence of excuse or justification overcomes the inference that [plaintiff] understood the documents he signed.

The lesson in this article is that all Indiana rebuttable presumptions remain in the case after contrary evidence is introduced, and that instead of “presume” or “presumption,” a jury instruction regarding a rebuttable instruction should use the words infer or inference.•

Mark A. Lienhoop is a managing partner of Newby Lewis Kaminski & Jones LLP in La Porte, Ind. His email is MALienhoop@nlkj.com. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana.

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. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  2. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

  3. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

  4. I grew up on a farm and live in the county and it's interesting that the big industrial farmers like Jeff Shoaf don't live next to their industrial operations...

  5. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

ADVERTISEMENT