J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., and Terry L. Brown, Jr. v. The Guardianship of Kristen Zak
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 300
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Jan 17, 2006, Hunt driver Terry Brown lost control of his tractor-trailer on I‑65 in snowy conditions and came to rest jackknifed in the median; Brown did not activate flashers or place warning triangles.
- About an hour later, Matthew Robinson lost control on the same overpass and his vehicle struck the disabled trailer; Kristen Zak (passenger) suffered catastrophic brain injuries.
- Guardianship of Zak sued Brown and J.B. Hunt alleging negligence (direct and vicarious) and later sought to assert independent negligence by Hunt based on company-level failures.
- After multiple mistrials and pretrial motions (including bifurcation and extensive motions in limine), a jury found liability and awarded $32.5 million, apportioning fault: Robinson 40%, Brown 30%, Hunt 30%.
- Defendants appealed, challenging denial of bifurcation, evidentiary rulings (including admissibility of post‑accident reports and certain witness testimony), several jury instructions, denial of summary judgment/directed verdict on duty and proximate cause, sufficiency of the evidence, and fault apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guardianship) | Defendant's Argument (Hunt/Brown) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Denial of bifurcation (liability vs damages) | Bifurcation unnecessary; trial court should decide in light of changed law. | Defendants argued plaintiff’s injuries were highly prejudicial and bifurcation was required. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; denial affirmed. |
| Admissibility of Robinson’s hypothetical testimony | Testimony was relevant to whether visible warnings would have changed driver behavior. | Testimony was speculative, character/habit evidence, or misleading. | Admission proper as relevant testimony (not barred by Rules 404/406); probative value for jury. |
| Admissibility of Hunt’s post‑accident investigation reports | Reports are not remedial measures but investigatory and thus admissible. | Reports constituted inadmissible subsequent remedial measures under Rule 407. | Court held post‑accident investigation and reports admissible; affirmed. |
| Exclusion of evidence re: Indiana State Police conduct | N/A (plaintiff sought to exclude irrelevant blame) | Defendants sought to show ISP did not direct warnings, as evidence of reasonable conduct. | Evidence excluded because ISP was dismissed and defendants failed to preserve it as non‑party for allocation; exclusion not an abuse. |
| Jury instructions & amendment of pleadings to conform to evidence | Hunt could be liable directly based on company policies/monitoring/testimony; jury should be instructed accordingly. | Argued instruction allowing independent liability and verdict form was improper and permitted double recovery. | Trial court properly allowed pleadings to conform to evidence; instructions (including per se/regulatory instruction) and verdict form were proper. |
| Duty and proximate cause (summary judgment/directed verdict) | Duty existed and defendant actions/omissions (including failure to warn/flashers and company failures) could foreseeably contribute to harm. | No duty to a motorist not yet on scene; intervening events (Robinson losing control) broke causal chain. | Questions of duty and proximate causation presented factual disputes for the jury; summary judgment/directed verdict properly denied. |
| Sufficiency of evidence and apportionment of fault | Evidence supported breach, causation, and the jury’s allocation (30/30/40). | Evidence insufficient; apportionment should place primary fault on Robinson. | Reviewing court concluded reasonable jurors could find in plaintiff’s favor and the apportionment was not against the evidence; verdict affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dan Cristiani Excavating Co. v. Money, 941 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (bifurcation standard and appellate reluctance to reverse).
- Harper v. Guarantee Auto Stores, 533 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (duty arises from relationships and may be mixed law/fact).
- Florio v. Tilley, 875 N.E.2d 253 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (summary judgment rarely appropriate in negligence cases).
- TRW Vehicle Safety Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of civil evidence).
- Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 2002) (proximate cause and foreseeability).
- Hellums v. Raber, 853 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (multiple proximate causes permitted).
- Indian Trucking v. Harber, 752 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (requirement to supply verdict form capable of showing percentage fault).
- Strack & Van Til, Inc. v. Carter, 803 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (discussing post‑accident discipline and subsequent remedial measures).