ILNews

Justices disagree on whether jury instruction requires new trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The majority of Indiana justices ordered a new trial on liability for a school corporation being sued for wrongful death, finding one of the jury instructions could have misled the jury about a key issue regarding liability.

Maria Rosales sued LaPorte Community School Corp. after her son choked to death on food while eating lunch at an elementary school. The jury awarded her $5 million, which was entered as $500,000, the maximum amount then allowed under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The school corporation appealed, and the focus of this opinion is Final Instruction 22. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial on this issue.

The majority found that the language of Instruction 22 reasonably could have been interpreted and applied by the jury in a way that substantially misstated the plaintiff’s burden of proof with respect to establishing negligence on the part of the school corporation.

“Such an interpretation effectively creates new duties not recognized by the common law in Indiana,” wrote Justice Brent Dickson in LaPorte Community School Corporation v. Maria Rosales, No. 46S04-1105-CT-284.
 
Because they are unable to conclude whether the jury’s verdict would have been the same if that instruction had unambiguously and correctly stated the law, the majority reversed and remanded for a new trial on the issue of liability only.

Justice Frank Sullivan dissented, pointing out that Instruction 11 laid out the required standard by explaining that negligence is failure to exercise reasonable or ordinary care. It’s well settled that jury instructions are to be considered as a whole and in reference to each other, he wrote.

“I see no basis for finding that the jury was misled here. Instruction 11 corrected any error in Instruction 22 such that the jury could not have been misled as to the law,” he wrote.

 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT