ILNews

Justices: Jeans require new trial

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court vacated a judgment in favor of a plaintiff who claimed he was injured by slipping on diesel fuel at a gas station, because of a pair of jeans introduced as evidence on the first day of trial. Those jeans, which the plaintiff said he was wearing the day of the accident, were introduced by the plaintiff without communicating the discovery to the opposing party.

In Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Gerald and Madeline Holmes, No. 45S05-0711-CV-258, Speedway appealed the trial court decision and Indiana Court of Appeals affirmation denying Speedway's motion to correct error and for relief from judgment under Indiana Trial Rules 59 and 60 and its request for relief under T.R. 60(B)(2) alleging newly discovered evidence.

Gerald and Madeline Holmes were traveling to Michigan in his refrigerated truck. On June 1, 2000, Gerald pulled his truck up to a fuel island at a truck stop and he slipped on what he described as diesel fuel, fell to the ground, and twisted his knee and hurt his back.

Gerald then changed his clothes, took a shower, and left the truck stop. The next day in Michigan, still in pain, he stopped at an emergency room for treatment. The injury has required him to undergo physical therapy, epidural injections for back pain, and knee surgery.

In November 2001, the Holmes filed a complaint for damages against the owner of the truck stop, Speedway SuperAmerica. Three weeks before trial, the Holmes' new attorney asked if they still had the pair of jeans and boots Holmes was wearing the day of the accident. The couple found what they believed to be the jeans and boots in their barn, where their son put them after cleaning out the contents of the truck.

On the first day of trial, Dec. 13, 2004, when Gerald was called as a witness, his attorney asked if he still had the jeans and he answered he found them in the summer. The attorney then stated he was giving notice to Speedway's attorney so that the jeans and boots could be displayed during Madeline's testimony. Speedway's attorney didn't object during trial but objected over the introduction of the evidence during a bench conference while the jury was on recess. The trial court allowed for the jeans and boots to be introduced as evidence but prohibited any testimony or inference the stain was diesel fuel.

The $1,125,000 awarded to Gerald was reduced to $562,600 because the jury found Speedway and Gerald each bore 50 percent liability.

Speedway filed its motions to correct error and for relief, and also a motion to test the jeans. The trial court granted only the motion to test the jeans.

Speedway's testing concluded that the jeans didn't have diesel fuel on them and the jeans' label shows the jeans weren't made as of June 1, 2000 and likely weren't manufactured until April 2001. After testing, the trial court denied Speedway's motion for a new trial.

Speedway is entitled to a new trial under T.R. 60(B)(2), ruled the high court, because the test results of the jeans proved Speedway met the nine requirements the Supreme Court has found are needed to order a new trial: evidence has been discovered since the trial; it is material and relevant; it is not cumulative; it is not merely impeaching; it is not privileged or incompetent; due diligence was used to discover it in time for trial; the evidence is worthy of credit; it can be produced upon a retrial of the case; and it will probably produce a different result at retrial, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm.

Although the plaintiffs argue Speedway didn't exercise due diligence in this case, the Supreme Court believes Speedway did. Speedway had asked for all exhibits the plaintiff intends to offer at trial, but that only yielded medical records. Also, it was the plaintiffs who discovered the jeans days before the trial and kept that information from Speedway, so the Supreme Court can't say that failing to request a continuance was a failure to exercise due diligence to discover the new evidence developed in a post-trial setting, wrote Justice Boehm.

The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to vacate the judgment and schedule a new trial.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT