LaPorte Community School Corp. v. Rosales
936 N.E.2d 281
Ind. Ct. App.2010Background
- LaPorte Community School Corporation (the School) operated Hailmann Elementary in Indiana and had a state-regulated emergency plan requiring a nurse to coordinate a first-aid team, CPR/first-aid training, and a list of trained personnel to the principal.
- In September 2006, nurse Huskey, shared between two schools, had not previously seen the Plan or coordinated required training; Maitland, the principal, had not discussed CPR training with Huskey.
- Juan Loera, age nine, choked at lunch; staff attempted back blows, Heimlich, and other standard life-saving maneuvers; a corn dog partially obstructed Juan’s airway and he died despite emergency efforts.
- Rosales filed wrongful death claims alleging School negligence and, later, emotional distress; the School asserted contributory negligence on Juan’s part.
- Hibbert, a safety expert, supported Rosales’s claim that the Plan was not properly implemented and staff were not adequately trained; Hibbert’s deposition was admitted at trial despite the School’s objections.
- The jury returned a verdict for Rosales, later reduced under the Indiana Tort Claims Act; the School appeals on several issues including expert testimony, negligence, contributory negligence, and jury instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of Hibbert’s deposition testimony | Hibbert’s expertise and experience qualified him; deposition reliable for safety plan critique | Testimony was unreliable, not Daubert-tested | Admissible; no abuse of discretion |
| Judgment on the evidence on negligence | Evidence supported failure to implement/train/prepare supervision | Evidence insufficient for breach of standard | Denied; negligence supported by evidence and history of Plan execution |
| Judgment on the evidence on contributory negligence | Juan’s behavior did not establish contributory negligence; age-based presumption applied | Contributory negligence could rebut Rosales’s claim | Granted Rosales’s motion; no substantial evidence of Juan’s contributory negligence |
| Jury instructions on negligence | Instruction 22 lowered standard of care by listing preventable acts | Instruction 26 properly allowed Plan considerations without setting higher duty | Instruction 22 erroneous; reversal required; remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Lytle v. Ford Motor Co., 696 N.E.2d 465 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) (admissibility of expert testimony—discretion of trial court)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind.2002) (manuals/policies not controlling ordinary care; need objective standard)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court 1993) (reliability standard for scientific expert testimony)