LaPORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORP. v. Rosales
963 N.E.2d 520
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Maria Rosales sued LaPorte Community School Corporation for wrongful death of her son who choked at Hailmann Elementary School.
- Jury awarded $5 million for plaintiff; judgment entered for $500,000 under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.
- Appeal challenged several issues, focusing on Final Instruction 22 and whether it misstated the burden of proving negligence.
- Trial court instructed that plaintiff needed to prove multiple alleged negligent acts, potentially creating automatic negligence if proven.
- Indiana standard for school duties is ordinary and reasonable care; Instruction 11 defined negligence, but Instruction 22 allegedly misstated burden.
- Court reversed and remanded for a new trial on liability only due to ambiguity and potential misstatement in Instruction 22.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Instruction 22 misstate the burden of proof on negligence? | Rosales argues Instruction 22 conveyed duties beyond common law standard. | LaPorte contends Instruction 22 simply listed plaintiff's allegations and burdens, not standard of care. | Yes; instruction could misstate the standard and burden of negligence. |
| Does read-together analysis with Instruction 11 cure any error in Instruction 22? | Instruction 11 clarifies negligence; reading together should prevent misperception. | Combined readings still left ambiguity, permitting automatic negligence from omissions. | No; ambiguity remains and undermines correct standard of care. |
| Should the case be remanded for a new trial on liability only? | Rule 66(D) limits new trial to liability, since error affects liability. | New trial should cover both liability and damages where error could affect damages. | Remand for new trial on liability only. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 2002) (reversible error framework for jury instructions)
- Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Alterovitz, 214 Ind. 186, 14 N.E.2d 570 (Ind. 1938) (instruction error must be harmless or reversible)
- Canfield v. Sandock, 563 N.E.2d 1279 (Ind. 1990) (reversal when error affects substantial rights)
- Timberman v. Clay City Consol. Sch. Corp., 918 N.E.2d 292 (Ind.2009) (read instructions as a whole; misleadings can require reversal)
- Huey v. Milligan, 242 Ind. 93, 175 N.E.2d 698 (Ind.1961) (instructions read as a whole; misdirection invalidates verdict)
- Ingram, State v., 427 N.E.2d 444 (Ind.1981) (mandatory elements instruction importance)
- Davison v. Williams, 242 N.E.2d 101 (Ind.1968) (elements instruction accuracy matters)