Mary Elizabeth Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, Individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel
2013 Ind. LEXIS 635
| Ind. | 2013Background
- James Santelli was robbed and murdered in 2005 inside a Super 8 motel owned by Abu Rahmatullah; the murderer, Joseph Pryor, pleaded guilty and was imprisoned.
- Evidence at trial showed the motel was in a high-crime area with prior robberies, lax security, and that Rahmatullah had given Pryor a master keycard (Pryor was a convicted felon and left employment with the key still active).
- The Estate sued Rahmatullah for negligent failure to maintain reasonable safety; the jury found total damages of $2,070,000 but apportioned fault 97% to Pryor, 2% to Rahmatullah, and 1% to Santelli, yielding an award of $41,400.
- The trial court granted the Estate’s motion to correct errors in part, ordering a new trial limited to allocation of fault, finding the jury’s 97% allocation to Pryor was against the weight of the evidence and explaining its factual findings under T.R. 59(J).
- On appeal the central legal question was whether Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act permits apportioning fault to an intentional/criminal actor (and whether a landowner may be held jointly and severally liable for the intentional actor’s share where the landowner’s duty was to prevent that very crime).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether jury may apportion fault to an intentional/criminal nonparty (Pryor) under Indiana law | Santelli’s Estate: a landowner who had the "very duty" to prevent the specific criminal risk should not be allowed to have fault reduced by comparing to the intentional actor; intentional acts should not be compared | Rahmatullah: comparative fault framework governs; jury may consider fault of all persons, including intentional actors | Held: Comparative Fault Act requires juries to consider intentional acts; allocation to Pryor was permissible and trial court correctly allowed apportionment to the criminal actor |
| Whether the trial court erred denying the Estate’s proposed instruction enforcing the "very duty" rule (that defendant is at fault for criminal’s act if the crime was reasonably foreseeable) | Estate: instruction necessary because defendant’s duty was to protect invitees from that foreseeable criminal risk | Rahmatullah: instruction would conflict with Comparative Fault Act and the Act’s statutory definition of "fault" | Held: Trial court properly refused the instruction; Comparative Fault Act includes intentional/willful acts in definition of fault |
| Whether a negligent landowner can be held jointly and severally liable for an intentional tortfeasor’s share when the negligent actor’s duty was to prevent that intentional act | Estate: where defendant failed to protect against the specific foreseeable risk, joint and several liability should apply and the negligent actor should absorb the intentional actor’s share | Rahmatullah: Comparative Fault Act abolished joint-and-several liability for actions governed by the Act and provides no right of contribution among tortfeasors | Held: Joint-and-several liability in this context is not available under current Indiana Comparative Fault Act; liability is several and apportioned by percentage |
| Whether the trial court properly granted a new trial limited to allocation of fault under T.R. 59(J) | Estate: jury allocation was against the weight of the evidence; new trial appropriate | Rahmatullah: court’s order was untimely and should be deemed denied (procedural challenge) | Held: The court’s November 5 order was timely (parties agreed on record to extension); the trial court made adequate T.R. 59(J) findings and did not abuse discretion in ordering new trial on allocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 2002) (background on Comparative Fault Act adoption and scope)
- Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (jury may allocate greater fault to landowner where landowner’s conduct created opportunity for crime)
- Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011) (statutory scheme allows consideration of relative causation among responsible actors)
- Indiana Department of Insurance v. Everhart, 960 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. 2012) (Comparative Fault Act abrogates old rule of joint-and-several liability in suits covered by the Act)
- Rubin v. Johnson, 550 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. Ct. App.) (discussing foreseeability and criminal acts in negligence per se context)
- Sauders v. County of Steuben, 693 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1998) (noting Comparative Fault statute did not apply under Tort Claims Act context)