Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Jury Award to Injured Concrete Worker
In its decision on January 26, 2011, the Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a jury award for Mr. Money, a concrete worker whose foot was injured when a bulldozer ran over it and later had to have four toes amputated, and his wife. Dan Cristiani Excavating Co. v. Money, 941 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The jury in the Clark Superior Court awarded Mr. Money $1,340,000.00 and awarded $228,917.00 to Mrs. Money. The excavating company responsible for paying the award, Dan Cristiani Excavating Company, appealed the decision by arguing that the trial should have bifurcated the trial into an initial liability phase and a later damages phase, the trial judge was wrong to not allow the jury to see the bulldozer or pictures of it, the trial judge was wrong to allow Mr. Money’s life care planner to testify about future medical treatment, and that the trial judge was personally biased. The Indiana Court of Appeals left the jury award unchanged and was not persuaded by any of the company’s arguments.
In upholding the jury award, the appeals court said the company failed to show how it was prejudiced by not having the trial separated into a liability phase and a later damages phase. The court refused to presume that hindsight bias of knowing Mr. Money’s damages and the emotional testimony of Mr. Money’s wife prejudiced the jury.
The court also found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it chose to not allow the jury to view the bulldozer or see pictures of the bulldozer that caused the accident. Other pictures were admitted of a similar bulldozer model and both the trial court and appellate court felt those were sufficient. The Indiana Court of Appeals also denied the company’s argument that one of Mr. Money’s witnesses, a certified nurse life care planner, should not a have been considered an expert. The court thought her testimony was proper and that Cristiani waived this argument because it never raised an issue with the characterization of the life planner anytime before or during trial. The appellate court lastly denied Cristiani’s argument that the trial judge was improperly biased in this case. This strong accusation requires a showing of actual personal bias on the part of the trial judge, something Cristiani could not show despite its argument that Money prevailed on “virtually every substantive evidentiary objection.” Id. at 1081. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of Mr. and Mrs. Money.
To read the full opinion, click here.
