ILNews

Jury awards $27M in damages

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Seven years ago, a propane water heater explosion leveled an apartment attached to a rural Morgan County barn, resulting in one man’s death and six of his family members being severely burned.

A liability lawsuit filed by the victims a year after the May 2004 blast went through years of pretrial proceedings and discovery disputes, and this November the family received a jury verdict of $27 million. With liability split between the property owner and defendants, the final damages amount translates to $17.5 million.

explosion-15col.jpg A May 2004 propane explosion in Morgan County destroyed an apartment and connected horse barn, resulting in one man’s death and six others being burned. A jury recently awarded $27 million in damages to the victims – $17.5 million after liability was calculated. (Submitted photo)

Plaintiffs’ attorney David Herzog believes that final verdict may be the largest in the county’s history, but the litigation is far from finished as the parties continue debating attorney fees and an appeal is planned. Legal lessons from the litigation are focused on what led to the $27 million verdict and liability-limited amount, how the issue of post-traumatic stress disorder played into the trial and the question about what monetary amount is warranted in these types of situations.

“We are pleased with the jury’s verdict,” said Herzog, an attorney with Baker & Daniels in Indianapolis. “This has been a very long process and it’s been quite an ordeal for our clients. They suffered not only horrific injuries and the loss of a husband and father, but they continued to suffer from emotional distress. That was a key part of this case and received considerable attention at trial.”

At the heart of the litigation is the May 12, 2004, explosion at the farm located about 12 miles northwest of Martinsville. The owners, William and Betty Kindle, were away on a 50th anniversary cruise and their granddaughter, Courtney Frederick, agreed to house-sit. Her husband, Stephan, and 2-year-old son, Samuel, were with her, as well as her uncle, Lonnie Kindle; 2-year-old cousin, Sierra Davis; and Sierra’s parents, K.C. and Jodi Davis.

They were all sleeping inside when the explosion happened shortly after 7 a.m., and Stephan was killed while the others were burned. The victims sued a year after the incident and discovery disputes ensued before the liability trial happened in 2010. Marion Superior Judge Robyn Moberly began as special judge in late 2008 after one of the utility defendants asked for a new judge in the case that would end up with more than 200 motions and filings and lead to a three-week jury trial.

Last year, the jury decided South Central Indiana Rural Electric Membership Corp., RushShelby Energy Rural Electric Cooperative and SCI Propane LLC were 65 percent liable for the accident, and that Courtney’s now-deceased grandfather shouldered the remaining 35 percent liability.

A side issue about what defendants needed to turn over in discovery arose. Last year, the Court of Appeals reversed a sanction against defendant water-heater maker White-Rodgers that Moberly had imposed for not turning over certain material in the litigation. The appellate panel found White-Rodgers had turned over what it needed to and reversed the sanction. At trial, the jury found White-Rodgers wasn’t liable in the explosion.

In November 2011, the damages aspect of the trial took place and found the defendants at fault for $17.5 million in damages for the victims. Herzog said it’s too early to know what amount the plaintiffs might actually receive, depending on the appeal. He didn’t know any details on how the money could be used if the verdict is upheld.

“As inadequate as it may be, money is the only way our system compensates people in these circumstances and that jury found that was necessary in this case,” he said.

For the damages trial, Herzog spent part of the trial telling the jurors about the explosion from Courtney’s perspective. When trying to escape the burning house in the explosion’s aftermath, the then-28-year-old mother grabbed her young son and pushed her husband and uncle outside through a hole in the living room wall, burning her arms and other parts of her body. She went back inside and scooped up Sierra, saving the girl’s life.

Aside from telling the story of what happened in the explosion, Herzog said a key strategy in the damages trial was emphasizing the emotional distress and post-traumatic stress disorder that resulted from the tragedy. The plaintiffs called in the treating physicians and burn unit nurses, as well as mental health professionals and experts in PTSD. While testimony from experts on the economic losses the victims faced as a result of the tragedy is the same type of evidence presented in any personal injury or wrongful death case, Herzog said the emotional and mental health experts’ testimony was more unique.

“I think the post-traumatic stress aspect factored more heavily in this case than most, that would be my suspicion,” Herzog said.

kindle-table.gifDefense attorneys in this case questioned whether the victims did enough to treat and deal with their emotional distress and PTSD. The plaintiffs’ counsel offered expert testimony and evidence proving how common it is for victims to not want to trigger memories of the incident and to avoid some treatment. Experts said that while the incident itself was traumatic, the post-explosion treatment and burn therapy was also traumatic and factors into the damages discussion. Adults can rationally understand what is happening but children, such as the pair of 2-year-olds who were burned, cannot reason through that experience. Another related aspect that surfaced was whether any certain amount of damages was needed and what that might mean for the victims.

Other personal injury attorneys in Indiana say the PTSD aspect doesn’t surface in litigation as much as other related issues, such as emotional distress, which involves some of the same litigation elements in testimony and evidence.

In Indianapolis, plaintiff lawyer Scott Montross said he’s only been involved in one PTSD case and said the common challenge in those types of cases involves the disorder not being diagnosed immediately after a traumatic event. The condition affects people in different ways, with some suppressing it entirely while others obtain limited counseling. Montross said he has consistently found in more than 40 years of litigating that clients deposed a year or more after an incident will sometimes breakdown as soon as the questions gets anywhere close to what happened with the traumatic event.

“As for the damages amount associated with this area, I’m convinced these damages are every bit as real as the physical injuries,” Montross said. “In fact, while the physical can eventually subside, the emotional piece can be another issue altogether. I’ve told juries before and will tell them again, when you get into these size damages, it isn’t how much, as it is whether the harm has been balanced. And the extent of the harm is a function of the evidence presented.”

Defense attorney Kent Frandsen with Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson declined to comment about factual or legal rulings in the lawsuit since the case is still pending before the trial judge on an attorney fees issue and an appeal is planned on the damages aspect.

“We will ask the appellate court to review several matters, including the judge’s post-verdict reallocation of the jury’s findings of fault,” Frandsen said. “Almost half of the damage award is for fault the jury found to be the responsibility of non-party Midland-Impact, not the SCI Propane companies. Also, we believe insufficient evidence was presented to support any finding of fault by SCI in this case.”•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT