Danny Sims v. Andrew Pappas and Melissa Pappas
2017 Ind. LEXIS 358
| Ind. | 2017Background
- On May 17, 2013, Danny Sims (drunk, BAC .18%) collided head‑on with Andrew Pappas; Sims pleaded guilty to OWI. Pappas and his wife sued for negligence, loss of consortium, and punitive damages.
- Sims admitted at trial that he was intoxicated and at fault; he also admitted in discovery two prior alcohol‑related driving offenses (1983 license suspension; 1996 reckless‑driving plea).
- At trial Pappas introduced Sims’ BMV driving record (showing the prior offenses); Sims objected as unfairly prejudicial; the court admitted the record after finding relevance based on Sims’ admissions.
- The jury awarded Pappas $1,444,000 compensatory and $182,500 punitive (Melissa Pappas awarded $373,500); judgment totaled about $2,000,000.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the prior convictions were irrelevant to compensatory damages and loss of consortium and improperly admitted; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and ultimately affirmed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior alcohol‑related convictions | Evidence of prior DUIs shows state of mind and is relevant to punitive damages and should be admissible | Prior convictions are remote (17 and 30 years), unduly prejudicial under Evid. R. 403 (and Rule 609 policy) and thus inadmissible | Admissible for limited purpose (punitive damages). Remoteness affects weight, not per se admissibility; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Relevance to compensatory damages and loss of consortium | Prior convictions tend to show carelessness and may bear on liability and damages | Prior convictions are unrelated to compensatory damages and are prejudicial | Prior convictions were not relevant to compensatory or loss‑of‑consortium damages; evidence was relevant only to punitive damages |
| Prejudice vs. probative value (Rule 403) | Probative value on punitive intent/gross negligence outweighs prejudice | Probative value is low given age; unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value | Probative value was sufficient for punitive purpose; prejudicial effect not unfairly so; admission not abuse of discretion |
| Excessiveness of punitive and compensatory awards | N/A (plaintiff sought full recovery) | Punitive award excessive, defendant lacks ability to pay; violates due process | Compensatory award supported by evidence; punitive award passed Hibschman "first blush" test and was not excessive; defendant failed to prove inability to pay |
Key Cases Cited
- Crabtree ex rel. Kemp v. Estate of Crabtree, 837 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. 2005) (explaining punitive damages punish and deter)
- Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (definition of conduct supporting punitive damages)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 2003) (definition of gross negligence)
- Davidson v. Bailey, 826 N.E.2d 80 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (prior DUI convictions relevant to willful/wanton conduct and punitive damages)
- Lindley v. Oppegaard, 275 N.E.2d 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 1971) (similar acts admissible to show state of mind)
- Thompson v. State, 690 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. 1997) (recognizing extreme prejudicial nature of prior convictions)
- Stroud v. Lints, 790 N.E.2d 440 (Ind. 2003) (reversing excessive punitive award where defendant was essentially impecunious)
- Hibschman Pontiac, Inc. v. Batchelor, 362 N.E.2d 845 (Ind. 1977) ("first blush" test for excessiveness of punitive damages)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (factors for reviewing punitive damages under Due Process)