Judges disagree on punitive damages award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a compensatory damage award today for a couple that was attacked, but the majority remanded the trial court's punitive damage award because it was excessive.

In James G. Clark and Larry A. Biddle III v. Donald and Janet Simbeck, No. 71A03-0801-CV-5, James Clark and Larry Biddle attacked Donald and Janet Simbeck after Donald stopped his car to question why the two had followed them closely in their car and driven recklessly around them.

Donald was hit in the head more than 30 times; Janet was struck once. Clark and Biddle pleaded guilty to two felony counts of battery resulting in serious injury and one misdemeanor count of battery.

A bench trial on the damages resulted in a compensatory award to Donald for $738,500; Janet received $26,000. The couple also received punitive damages of $60,000 each.

Clark and Biddle appealed, arguing the trial court erred in denying their motion for a continuance. The Court of Appeals affirmed because Clark and Biddle delayed hiring replacement counsel after their original attorney withdrew his appearance until the Friday before the trial was set to start, wrote Senior Judge George B. Hoffman.

The trial court's suggestion Clark and Biddle consider waiving the liability issue and proceed with a bench trial on damages didn't prejudice the two, the appellate court ruled. Clark and Biddle weren't forced or intimidated into waiving their jury trial, nor does Indiana's Comparative Fault Act apply in this case because the two didn't make a claim Donald failed to mitigate his damages, wrote the judge.

The Court of Appeals found given the severe pain and injury caused upon Donald because of the attack, the compensatory award was not excessive. However, the appellate court reversed the punitive damages award for the couple because the trial court didn't consider Clark and Biddle's financial condition and ability in ordering them to pay $60,000 in punitive damages to each of the victims. The Court of Appeals remanded for the trial court to determine the amount of punitive damages, if any, reflective of Clark and Biddle's financial status.

Chief Judge John Baker dissented only regarding the punitive damages, finding Clark and Biddle's conduct on the night they attacked the Simbecks to be "so egregious, so malicious, and so brutal that the relatively nominal punitive damages award of $60,000 is warranted."

The appellate court also denied the Simbecks' request for damages and attorney fees because Clark and Biddle's appeal wasn't frivolous or in bad faith.


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. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit