Sandberg Trucking, Inc., and Kimiel Horn v. Brittany M. Johnson
76 N.E.3d 178
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On April 27, 2008, Sandberg Trucking driver Kimiel Horn struck a deer on I‑65 at ~5:00 a.m., leaving remains across the roadway; Horn parked his tractor‑trailer on the right shoulder ~250 feet south of the impact point.
- Horn exited to inspect damage (a dangling headlamp) and did not immediately activate hazard flashers or deploy reflective triangles; he activated flashers about 90 seconds after parking while retrieving triangles and then heard squealing tires and a crash ~10 seconds later.
- Joshua Horne, driving southbound with fiancée Brittany Johnson as passenger, apparently swerved to avoid the deer remains, lost control, struck the rear of Horn’s parked truck, killing Joshua and causing severe, permanent injuries to Johnson.
- Johnson sued Sandberg and Horn for negligence, alleging failure to warn other motorists (failure to immediately activate hazard flashers/deploy triangles), citing 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 as a standard; a jury found defendants 30% liable, awarded Johnson $7.1 million in damages (reduced to $2.13 million based on comparative fault).
- Defendants appealed, arguing insufficient evidence of duty and proximate cause, improper jury speculation, misapplication of § 392.22, and unsupported damages. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to warn fellow motorists (including hazard beyond the stopped truck) | Horn owed the ordinary‑care duty to other motorists; duty exists and breach is for jury | Horn owed no duty to warn of the deer remains; duty limited to stationary truck | Court: general duty of motorists exists; whether breached is for the jury |
| Proximate cause | Failure to immediately activate flashers could have alerted Joshua and prevented crash; expert testified to that effect | No evidence driver would have slowed or avoided crash; too attenuated to be proximate cause | Court: reasonable jury could find Horn’s delay a proximate cause; affirmed |
| Impermissible speculation by jury | Johnson: jurors may infer drivers would react differently to a warning; testimony and expert support inference | Defendants: verdict rests on pure speculation because decedent and injured passenger cannot testify what they would have done | Court: allowing inference not speculative here; jurors may infer altered conduct from warnings; verdict sustainable |
| Applicability and significance of 49 C.F.R. § 392.22 | § 392.22 is a relevant guideline incorporated into Indiana law and supports standard of care (not absolute negligence‑per‑se) | § 392.22 inapplicable because Horn was not in interstate commerce and federal rule shouldn’t govern intrastate driver conduct | Court: Indiana incorporated the federal provisions for intrastate carriers; § 392.22 is admissible as a guideline (creates a presumption of negligence if violated but is rebuttable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (elements of negligence)
- King v. Northeast Security, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. 2003) (negligence elements framework)
- Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001) (established‑duty analysis and focus on breach for given facts)
- J.B. Hunt Transp., Inc. v. Guardianship of Zak, 58 N.E.3d 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (similar factual context; evidentiary inferences about driver reaction to warnings)
- Indian Trucking Ass’n v. Harber, 752 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (statutory violation may create negligence‑per‑se presumption)