ILNews

Wrongful death

March 17, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Jennifer Murphy, as parent of Travis Tyler Hensley, deceased v. DB Mobile Home Park

Pre-lawsuit mediation by Peter Schroeder

Injuries: Death of a 13-year-old boy

Date: Dec. 4, 2009

 

Disposition: $500,000 settlement

Plaintiff Attorney(s): Steven M. Crell, Cohen Garelick & Glazier, Indianapolis

Defendant Attorney(s): Kyle M. Baker, McNeely Stephenson Thopy & Harrold, Shelbyville

Insurance: Indiana Farm Bureau Insurance Co

Case Information: On June 20, 2009, 13-year-old Travis Tyler Hensley was sleeping in his bedroom of a trailer his family rented in the Clermont Mobile Home Park when a fire started in the mobile home. Tyler’s mom, Jeni Murphy, woke up as the fire was engulfing the mobile home. After initially escaping the fire, she tried to re-enter the mobile home to save her son. She was unsuccessful and her son died of smoke inhalation.

Tyler’s family argued that the window to Tyler’s bedroom could not be opened and that there was no working smoke alarm in the mobile home. They argued that housing codes were violated and the landlord, DM Clermont Mobile Home Park (DM), was responsible for Tyler’s inability to survive and escape the fire.
DM claimed the fire may have been caused by an electrical appliance or by a member of Tyler’s family. It claimed the window was put in place before the current housing codes and was therefore “grandfathered” from the application of the housing codes. It also claimed that the smoke alarm in the mobile home was functioning.

Pete Schroeder did a masterful job of mediating the dispute. He was able to demonstrate to both parties the risks involved in litigating the dispute and the benefit to a negotiated settlement. The case settled at mediation for a payment to Tyler’s mom in the sum of $500,000. The benefit to pre-suit mediations cannot be overstated. The parties not only saved substantial costs and attorneys’ fees, but also were able to promptly resolve a claim that would surely have taken several months or years to resolve and allowed Tyler’s family to receive some measure of closure following his death.

 - Steven M. Crell

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT