Dan Cristiani Excavating Co., Inc. v. Money
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 94
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Money was a long-tenured employee who performed grade checking for a bulldozer operator; Money was injured when the bulldozer backed over his foot, causing severe injuries including toe amputations.
- Cristiani and Weber Concrete were sued; the jury apportioned fault 67% Cristiani, 33% Money, 0% Weber, and awarded Money and his wife damages totaling over $1.5 million.
- Cristiani moved for bifurcation of liability and damages; the court denied.
- Cristiani sought a jury view of the bulldozer or admission of photographs; the court denied.
- Lampton, a nurse life-care planner, testified regarding Money’s future medical needs based on physician input; Cristiani objected.
- Cristiani argued the judge’s rulings showed bias; the court found no actual personal bias and affirmed judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bifurcation was properly denied | Cristiani argues liability and damages should be tried separately to avoid prejudice. | Cristiani contends bifurcation would promote economy and prevent prejudice. | No abuse of discretion; no sufficient prejudice shown to require bifurcation. |
| Whether the jury view or photographs of the bulldozer were erroneously denied | A view or photos would help the jury understand the incident. | A view was not a right; photos/demonstrations were adequately presented. | Court did not abuse discretion; viewing/photographs not materially helpful. |
| Whether Lampton’s life-care-planning testimony was properly admitted | Lampton was unqualified to testify about Money’s future medical needs. | Lampton properly testified as a life-care planner; relied on physician input. | Lampton properly qualified; expert testimony admissible and weight to be evaluated by jury. |
| Whether there was judicial bias requiring reversal | Patterns of rulings favored Money; alleged bias. | Adverse rulings alone do not prove bias; must show actual bias. | No actual personal bias established; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frito-Lay, Inc. v. Cloud, 569 N.E.2d 983 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (judicial economy and prejudice considerations in bifurcation)
- Shafer & Freeman Lakes Envtl. Conserv. Corp. v. Stichnoth, 877 N.E.2d 475 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (weight of evidence and prejudice in bifurcation analysis)
- Carroll v. State, 438 N.E.2d 745 (Ind.1982) (jury view is discretionary and not a substantive right)
- Neese v. Kelley, 705 N.E.2d 1047 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (reversal for evidentiary error requires prejudice to substantial rights)
- In re Estate of Holt, 870 N.E.2d 511 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (evidentiary error must affect substantial rights)
- Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dercach, 450 N.E.2d 537 (Ind.Ct.App.1983) (policy favoring few trials and judicial economy)
- Emerson v. State, 524 N.E.2d 314 (Ind.1988) (trial rulings independent from motions in limine)
- Brooks v. Friedman, 769 N.E.2d 696 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (examination of expert testimony credibility and weight)