*1 Ind. pardon. of a granting (1988). Code affirmed. J., SULLIVAN, C.J.,

concur. NELSON, Appellant Gilkison, Clark, J. Beasley,

Kimberli R. Charles (Plaintiff Below), Clark, Muncie, for Retherford, & Buckles appellant. v. Wallace, Bunch, Campbell, R. James Coopera Lafayette David SIGMAN Orr, Coving- Shambach, Bunch, Rennick & Co., Appellees tive II, Beardsley Sten- & ton, Beardsley, E. Joe Below). (Defendants Clinton, appellees. gel, 83A04-8906-CV-238. No. CONOVER, Judge. Indiana, Appeals of Court District. Plaintiff-Appellant Fourth order (Nelson) appeals Aug. dam- net assessment changing Defendant-Appellee David pursuant Trial Rule an Ind. filing of (Sigman) man's Judgment. Motion Correct reverse. which we issues presents This follows: restate erred 1. whether Trial Ind. amending its alleged 60(A) to correct Rule in a com- miscalculation verdict; parative erred trial court 2. whether a state stat- refusing to instruct ve- driving a motor prohibits ute highways with .10% public on the hicle blood; weight of more (a) trial court 3. whether consider, they could instructing Nelson's emphasizing, (b) unduly contributory fault. van home employer's her work place of

from her attempted to afternoon, *2 truck owned La- slow-moving flat bed contrary, Sigman argues the form To the jury the verdict submitted to the Sigman fayette Cooperative Elevator Co. He had consumed faulty at the time. and since it instructed the driving to his three beers at home but was jury multiply to pick up to his wife and child

in-laws' house multiplying the total amount of rather than trouble. who were stranded with car by Sigman's percentage of fault. damages just man turned left as Nelson object to to the ver- Because Nelson failed he had activated to him. He claimed form, object cannot now dict's signal starting his left his left turn before corrective action because the turn. waived, In the alter- issue is he contends. native, Sigman posits the trial court cor- Sigman collided and both slid Nelson and change in the rectly required made the through nearby ditch at the intersection judgment to arrive at the result intended A adjoining into an field. field sobrie- jury ty test revealed had blood .10% 60(A). by weight in his blood at the time. stipulated pled guilty trial he He provides: IC 34-4-88-9 resulting charge and to the criminal brought under In actions See. centage body in his at the of blood alcohol jury chapter, whenever returns ver- time the accident. dicts in which the ultimate amounts merits, re- After a trial on the its deter- awarded are inconsistent with showing comparative fault verdict turned percent- minations of total 51%, ages court shall: Co-op and total at fault 0% (1) inform the of such inconsisten- $21,000. calculating In the net verdict cles; amount the determined Nelson was (2) to order them to resume deliberations $10,290, ie., only entitled to inconsistencies; correct damages.

total When (8) liberty they them that are at instruct verdict, promptly dis- the trial court change any portions of the verdicts charged it from further service after deter- correct inconsistencies. mining it their and without 60(A) provides: and T.R. affording an counsel (A) mistakes objections to its form as com- Mistakes. Clerical it or make Clerical parts pleted by judgments, on that ver- orders or other day. then entered the same and errors therein dict was the record may be cor- oversight or omission Sigman later filed a T.R. motion to by the trial court at time rected judgment. Nelson then filed a mo- correct is filed on of its before the record correct errors. The trial court tion to or on the motion of own initiative motion, granted Sigman's changed notice, any, if as the party and after such $10,710, recovery to amount of Nelson's court orders. motion to correct er- and denied Nelson's Regarding forms of verdict rors. cases, provided at that fault IC 34-4-883-6 appeals. time: argues only She first 6. The court shall furnish to See. internal is authorized to correct jury forms of verdicts fault ver- of: disclosure opines, the trial court erred dict. charged upon by altering party; by changing the net amount of made the calculations $10,290, award from of total dam- arrive at their final verdict.1 $10,710, thereof. or 51% Legislature amended this section to read: The 1990 Indiana shall fill in the form, as com- court's verdict The trial open court returned into pleted and 6B. Do not

jury, read: -J. A. We find *3 defendant, David against the Nelson VERDICT (Multiply the Sigman, in the sum by2 the at Line centage fount [sic] fault of find that the 1. We the Line 8 and enter found at amount Nelson, was plaintiff, Kimberli here) product Line 1 is in at (If percentage filled the $10,290 2, 8 and 4 shall Lines greater than Joseph Domeika Michael /s/ instead, the completed; not be FOREMAN the and 6B and sign Lines 5B shall at defendant, David the find for B. We delibera- no further jury shall conduct Kim- against plaintiff, the Sigman, tions.) J. Nelson. berli fault of find that the 2. We Eleva- defendant, Lafayette Cooperative FOREMAN Co., was tor -0-% 96).2 (R. comparative fault the find that

8. We Bu Citing Computer Services DDR defendant, Sigman, David (1980), Ind.App., Davis reau v. proposition, his second support in Disregarding any ob has waived insists Nelson plaintiff's total we find the form as returned. the jection to verdiet's $21,000 damages are waived agrees she has in the fill foreman shall prepared form as the verdiet's objection to sign 5A and amount Line court, vigorously denies trial the Do not Line 5B. form of the verdict's the issue has waived is distin jury. DDR returned as Kimberli J. plaintiff, there, coun the A. We find for its facts because guishable on defendant, opportunity given Co- the sel were against objec and make verdict as Co., in the sum of the Elevator operative discharge, she as jury's prior to the tions found percentage the (Multiply Nelson. with serts. Line 4 and enter found at by the amount here) product an issue that waiver proposition $-0- party affected not occur where does Joseph Domeika Michael /s/ action proposed notice of given prior no FOREMAN thereon is heard opportunity be and an defendant, Lafayette find for the B. We au- it no citation needs fundamental so Co., Cooperative gave Nel- the trial thority. Because J. Nelson. to dis- such son no service, further jury from charging Joseph Domeika Michael /s/ turnWe did not occur. the issue waiver of FOREMAN verdict form Obviously, to the furnish The court shall Sec. 6. prepared in error and require only submitted of verdicts forms disclo- jury. 6A's confusing to the probably was sure of: charged against instructions, jury to impossible it was nonparty; party and it wished dollar amount at the net arrive against each of the verdict instruc- had those Nelson in award defendant. Clearly, explicitly. multi- been followed tions is sufficient in the action evidence If the pro- does not plying one nonparty, charging support of fault to of verdict. dollar amount duce a a disclosure shall verdict also form of faulty and form correct. The percentage of nonparty the name possibly nonparty. charged power to correct namely, grants us the question, more basic now to the action under TR. reviewing the whether the error. We are 60(A) verdict. any defect correction of judge's cured trial is not a sub- jury's error. Such here apply be does correction us. ject to ... errors "clerical mistakes cause no [or] omission," oversight or Therefore, . I concur. writing copying, ef. defi ie. mistakes Low error" Block's of "clerical nition MILLER, Presiding Judge, Co., 1968, Publishing Dictionary, West provides I concur. Ind.Code *4 entered on judgment here. The involved internally in- mandatory procedures for precise figures contained the verdict consistent verdicts. as returned. in the verdict appearing case is inconsistent attempt The verdiet Further, jury by reached The alter the result 84-4-88-9. ultimate IC ($10,290.00) is inconsist- recovery judg awarded changing Nelson's ($21,000.00) with the total IC 84-4-88-9. ent ment is not authorized allocated to and the returning terms, only Under its case can Mr. (51%). therein after resolve Ratliff, I think that Judge do not Unlike court and before proper instruction as a result of requiring a new trial we The statute discharged from service. it is error. The incon- an obvious take a trial court to does not authorize necessarily sistency a mathematical is internally if the verdict corrective action possibilities exist: At least two error. has been dis inconsistent after meant to find Plaintiff Nel- The only remedy available charged. but reversed son 51% a new trial. circumstances is under these rendered a centages and should not have for a new trial. and remanded Reversed (confusion as to all money judgment at law); applicable MILLER, P.J., RATLIFF, C.J., con- awarding Plaintiff opinions. separate cur with ($10,290.00)rather than Judge, Chief (mathematical (10,710.00) requiring a Although it to me that seems error). mathemati- correct an obvious new trial to 84-4-88-9, is not to the court Under of time and leads to a waste cal error by assuming what the error correct the courts, resources intended; rather, is to correct counsel, reluctantly I bar, In the case the inconsistencies. 34-4-83-9, and provisions of IND.CODE § excused, making impos- jury has been case, such a procedural posture of cireumstances, a new these sible. Under inescapable. result remedy. appropriate trial would be 60(A) clearly was not the Ind. Trial Rule of the error. proper for correction vehicle of this circumstances the factual

case, that a TR. 59 I like to believe would have en errors would

motion to correct to make the correction. the court

abled treat

However, T.R. 60 motion cannot be Oxidermo, TR. 59 motion. Siebert ed as a Ind., (1983),

Inc. v. Shields I

337. Neither do believe 15(N)(8) Ind.App.Rule us

granted to subject to correction

correct a