159 N.E.3d 1
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- Plaintiff Sydney Renner had multiple prior concussions (2013, 2014) and then suffered a concussion in a low-speed rear-end collision caused by defendant Trevor Shepard‑Bazant in April 2016. Shepard‑Bazant defaulted on liability; the bench trial addressed damages only.
- Post-accident, Renner was diagnosed with concussion and post‑concussional syndrome, received vestibular and physical therapy, experienced persistent headaches and cognitive problems, and subsequently performed poorly in college and changed career plans.
- The trial court awarded Renner $132,000, explaining it assigned a daily value of $30 over life expectancy and reduced the award to account for prior concussions and Renner’s noncompliance with some post‑concussion recommendations.
- Renner moved to correct error seeking a substantially larger award (~$692,000); the trial court denied the motion. Renner appealed the denial of the motion to correct error.
- The Court of Appeals held the trial court misapplied causation by treating Renner’s prior concussions as separate, offsetting events rather than preexisting conditions that made her more susceptible to injury (the eggshell‑skull principle); it reversed and remanded for a new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying motion to correct error on damages | Trial court undercompensated by failing to treat prior concussions as part of the causal chain that increased harm from defendant’s collision | Trial court correctly apportioned damages to account for prior incidents and plaintiff’s post‑accident conduct; some intervening events caused ongoing symptoms | Reversed: trial court erred by not applying the rule that defendant takes plaintiff as found; remanded for new trial on damages |
| Whether prior concussions establish liability under the "eggshell skull" rule | Prior concussions made Renner more susceptible to a later concussion and aggravated symptoms from defendant’s collision, so defendant is liable for aggravated harm | Prior concussions and post‑collision incidents (e.g., amusement‑park ride, later bumps) caused or superseded plaintiff’s ongoing injuries | Held for plaintiff on this point: prior concussions must be considered as preexisting conditions that defendant’s negligence aggravated; trial court failed to do so logically |
| Whether plaintiff’s post‑accident conduct (prom, roller coasters, failure to follow treatments) bars or reduces recovery (failure to mitigate) | Such conduct at most exacerbated symptoms but did not produce a separate, identifiable harm; defendant failed to prove discrete additional injury caused by plaintiff’s conduct | Plaintiff unreasonably failed to mitigate and her conduct caused or worsened injuries, justifying reduced damages | Held for plaintiff on mitigation: defendant did not show discrete, quantifiable harm caused solely by mitigation failures; evidence showed exacerbation, not separate injury |
| Proper remedy for the erroneous damages calculation | Request to simply increase award based on plaintiff’s calculations | Trial court used its own daily‑value method; appellate court should remand rather than assign a new specific award | Court remanded for a new trial on damages rather than specifying a dollar amount |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 2012) (reaffirms rule that defendant takes victim as found)
- Armstrong v. Gordon, 871 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (defendant liable for increased susceptibility to injury)
- Dunn v. Cadiente, 516 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. 1987) (liability limited to aggravation caused by defendant, not preexisting condition itself)
- Humphrey v. Tuck, 151 N.E.3d 1203 (Ind. 2020) (explains elements and burden for failure to mitigate defense)
- Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 2006) (mitigation reduces recoverable damages; defendant must prove resulting additional harm)
- Manzo v. Estep, 689 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (standard for reviewing inadequacy of damages award and remanding for new trial)
- Spaulding v. Cook, 89 N.E.3d 413 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (distinguishable low‑impact collision case on causation and proof of separate injury)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hammond, 759 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. 2001) (standard of review for motions to correct error)