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. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. 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.

  5. 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;

ADVERTISEMENT