Debra L. Walker v. David M. Pullen
2011 Ind. LEXIS 230
| Ind. | 2011Background
- rear-end collision in Dunkin' Donuts drive-through; Walker behind Pullen, hits him; Pullen seeks damages for neck injuries; jury awards $10,070; Pullen moves for new trial asserting damages weight not supported by evidence; trial court grants new trial but with insufficient Trial Rule 59(J) findings; Indiana Supreme Court reverses and remands to reinstate verdict; medical bills and damages disputed, with conflicting causation testimony between 2004 and 2007–2008 treatment; trial court held undisputed medical bills totaled $12,520 and verdict was less than medical bills; appellate court affirmed; issue focused on proper Rule 59(J) findings and weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Rule 59(J) for a new trial. | Pullen | Walker | No; insufficient specific findings required by Rule 59(J). |
| Whether the jury verdict should be reinstated given the weight of the evidence. | verdict reflected damages for PT and initial medical assessment only | some medical expenses were unrelated or unnecessary; verdict undercompensated | Yes; reinstate the jury verdict. |
| Whether the undisputed medical bills justify a new trial for weight of the evidence. | Pullen’s bills totaled higher than awarded. | jury could have found some expenses unnecessary or unrelated. | Court rejected relying on undisputed totals; required Rule 59(J) findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nissen Trampoline Co. v. Terre Haute First Nat’l Bank, 265 Ind. 457 (Ind. 1976) (paramount importance of Rule 59(J) findings; arbiter of trial court’s authority to grant new trials)
- Weida v. Kegarise, 849 N.E.2d 1147 (Ind. 2006) (strict compliance with Rule 59(J) must support overruling a jury verdict)
- Lake Mortgage Co. v. Federal Nat’l Mortgage Ass’n, 262 Ind. 601 (Ind. 1975) (preserves correctness of trial court’s special findings standard)
- State v. White, 474 N.E.2d 995 (Ind. 1985) (limits on overturning jury verdict without clear factual support)
- Leroy v. Kucharski, 878 N.E.2d 247 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (discusses purpose of Rule 59(J) findings)