923 F.3d 479
7th Cir.2019Background
- Johnny Webber was cutting trees on Roger Butner’s property when a dead branch fell and severely injured Webber’s head. Webber was not wearing a hardhat.
- Webber sued Butner for negligence; Butner contended Webber assumed risk/was comparatively at fault for not wearing a hardhat.
- Before trial the district court ruled evidence that Webber lacked a hardhat was admissible to show assumption of risk, comparative fault, and whether Webber acted as a reasonably careful person, but not to show mitigation or severity of injuries.
- At trial the jury apportioned fault 51% to Webber and 49% to Butner; under Indiana’s modified comparative-fault statute this barred Webber’s recovery.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit applied Indiana substantive law to ask whether evidence of not wearing safety equipment is relevant only when the failure to use the equipment contributed to causing the injury.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of evidence that plaintiff was not wearing a hardhat | Webber: nonuse of a hardhat was irrelevant because it did not cause the branch to fall or the injuries | Butner: evidence shows assumption of risk, comparative fault, and lack of reasonable care and may be considered in apportioning fault | Error to admit: Indiana law permits evidence of failure to use safety equipment only if that failure contributed to causing the injury; here it did not |
| Jury instruction about considering hardhat evidence | Webber: instruction improperly invited consideration of irrelevant conduct in apportioning fault | Butner: instruction properly limited use to assumption of risk/comparative fault/reasonable care | Instruction was erroneous because it allowed consideration of noncausal conduct in apportioning fault |
| Whether the error was harmless | Webber: admission/instruction affected outcome because apportionment was nearly even | Butner: evidence and instruction harmless given other evidence | Not harmless: jury’s 51/49 split means error could have affected verdict; remand for new trial |
| Proper legal standard for fault allocation under Indiana law | Webber: causation is required to attribute fault for failure to use safety equipment | Butner: expansive Comparative Fault Act allows consideration of all relevant conduct | Court: Comparative Fault Act allows broad consideration but requires causal nexus; only conduct that proximately caused the injury may be apportioned as fault |
Key Cases Cited
- Green v. Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011) (comparative-fault statute permits broad consideration of conduct but requires proximate-cause nexus to apportion fault)
- Kocher v. Getz, 824 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 2005) (failure to use safety devices before injury is relevant only if it causally contributed to the injury; post-injury mitigation is distinct)
- Musick v. United States, 768 F. Supp. 183 (W.D. Va. 1991) (hardhat evidence inadmissible to assign fault where wearing a hardhat would not have prevented the event that caused the limb to fall)
- Barron v. Ford Motor Co., 965 F.2d 195 (7th Cir. 1992) (distinguishing relevance of seatbelt/nonuse evidence for causation vs. mitigation)
- Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 2002) (discussing preservation of proximate-cause requirement in Indiana’s comparative-fault framework)
Decision: vacated judgment for defendant and remanded for a new trial because admission of hardhat-nonuse evidence and the related jury instruction were legal errors that were not harmless.