Motor vehicle accident: rear-end collision

September 9, 2015
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Trial Reports: Reports on recent Indiana cases submitted by the lawyers involved.

Motor vehicle accident: rear-end collision

Name of Case: Dennis R. Thomas and Luisa Thomas v. Phyllis A. Isenhower

Court Case Number: 72C01-1307-CT-000027

Injuries: neck, back, wrist, hip, headaches

Court: Scott Circuit Court 1

Court Date: July 21-23, 2015

Trial Type: Jury trial

Judge: Hon. Roger L. Duvall

Disposition: Jury verdict for plaintiffs

Plaintiff Attorney: Heidi Kendall-Sage and R. Patrick Magrath; Madison, Indiana

Defendant Attorney: William H. Mullis; Mitchell, Indiana

Insurance: Western Reserve Mutual Casualty Company

Case Information: This case arose after a bumper-to-bumper accident in the McDonald’s drive-thru lane in Scottsburg, Indiana. On Sept. 17, 2011, the defendant’s foot released pressure from the brake pedal, and her car rolled forward and tapped the rear bumper of the plaintiffs’ car. Plaintiff wife was taken by EMS to the local hospital for examination for neck, back, right hip, and right wrist pain (all x-rays negative). Nine days later, both plaintiffs next sought care and began courses of treatment with a local chiropractor with follow-up treatment by a local physical therapist. The jury trial in the Scott Circuit Court lasted three days. The evidence at trial indicated there was virtually no physical damage to either car (small scuff on plaintiffs’ plastic rear bumper cover). Plaintiffs testified concerning their immediate onset of pain, the nature and severity of their pain, and that they had lingering pain from the accident. Plaintiff wife testified that her primary care provider (nurse practitioner) recommended an MRI but they could not afford it. Plaintiffs’ treating chiropractor and physical therapist testified concerning plaintiffs’ complaints, conditions and their respective treatment. The defendant testified that she was not sure what happened (foot released pressure from brake pedal or slipped off brake pedal, another car pushed hers into plaintiffs’ or plaintiffs backed into her car). The defense also called a consulting chiropractor to testify that the plaintiffs’ treatment was excessive and the charges unnecessary and that their claims of severe pain and residual pain were not caused by the accident. The consulting chiropractor also testified that if plaintiffs’ conditions had not substantially improved within a couple of weeks after the accident they should have tried something else. The jury deliberated for two hours. The parties submitted to mediation, and the last settlement positions were that plaintiffs demanded $20,000.00 (Dennis) and $30,000.00 (Luisa), and the defendant’s carrier offered $1,000.00 and $4,000.00, respectively.

Submitting Attorney: William H. Mullis


  • amendments
    I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!