Why Punitive Damages in Indiana Drunk Driving Claims Matter

If you suffer injury and/or other losses because of somebody else’s negligence, there are two general kinds of damages you can pursue. The first, compensatory damages, applies in every case and the goal is monetary compensation that aims to “make the plaintiff whole.”

Of course, our Munster drunk driving injury lawyers know that there really is nothing – no amount of money – that can achieve that goal. There is absolutely no price tag on catastrophic injuries or death, and those affected would give back every dime if it meant they could regain what they lost. Still, the goal of compensatory damages is all about what a plaintiff has lost and what can be offered to help them heal to the fullest extent possible. The amount is supposed to be calculated in a way that equitably compensates a person, sometimes dollar-for-dollar (i.e., medical bills), but other times for intangible losses like pain and suffering and loss of consortium. more

The second kind of damages you can seek are punitive damages. These are intended for a very different purpose than compensatory damages and plaintiffs are required to ask for a special hearing to get permission to even ask the jury to award them.

Punitive damages in Indiana are NOT all about the plaintiff, even though the plaintiff is the beneficiary. Punitive damages are about the conduct of the defendant – and potential future defendants to come. They are awarded to punish conduct verified as willful, wanton and lacking in care for the probable injury consequences they will have.

Courts have held the question of whether a plaintiff can prove by clear and convincing evidence he/she has reasonable grounds to ask the jury for a punitive damage award is a matter of law for judges to decide prior to trial. However, the question of whether the plaintiff HAS met the proof burden entitling them to damages – and if so, how much they should receive – are questions of fact for a jury.

Not many types of injury claims in this state will have a legal or factual basis on which to assert these punitive damages, which per IC 34-51-3 are added to one’s compensatory damages for a maximum penalty of three times that amount or $50,000. Drunk driving torts are unique in this respect.

Indiana Drunk Driving Defendant’s Own Words Establish Grounds for Punitive Damages

As our Munster drunk driving injury attorneys understand it, the plaintiff began the pursuit of punitive damages from a unique disadvantage – all because the defendant fled the scene after colliding with her.

The plaintiff alleges the defendant got drunk, got behind the wheel of his car and rear-ended her. He is accused of immediately fleeing the scene without stopping to talk to plaintiff or make sure she was physically alright, as the statute requires. A police officer discovered the defendants car a few hours later, tracked him down and asked him if he’d been involved in a crash. Defendant gave a few different answers to several of the officer’s questions. The officer tested plaintiff’s breath-alcohol level at that point, which registered at 0.2-0.03, less than the 0.08 required to prove impairment. The police impounded his vehicle and arrested him for fleeing the scene of a crash.

In the answers the defendant gave to the officer – after his truck was impounded yet before he was under arrest – he indicated several times he’d been drinking. The amounts varied. Although he said he wasn’t driving at the time of the crash, he later admitted being behind the wheel.

The defendant was right in that police didn’t have enough evidence to criminally prosecute him for DUI with injury. But the proof burden is lower in civil cases, and his own testimony, the appellate court ruled, formed the basis for plaintiff’s reasonable grounds to ask for punitive damages against him for her serious injuries.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

This case underscores the options drunk driving victims have to seek compensation for a serious injury or death caused by these actions. That’s because drunk driving, in addition to being a form of negligence, is also a crime. Still, the criminal trial is completely separate and apart from the civil case. There is a separate standard for the burden of proof, and the outcome of one case won’t necessarily affect the outcome of the other.

Furthermore, our Highland injury lawyers can explain Indiana’s liquor liability laws are such that you may be able to hold accountable the bar or restaurant that served that drunken driver, as well as the driver and potentially the owner of the vehicle.

Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, Ind. Code 7.1-5-10-15.5, statutorily allows for civil liability in certain situations when one furnishes alcohol to another person who causes harm due to their intoxication. The idea is that those who provide alcoholic beverages are liable for the reasonably foreseeable results of serving drinks to someone who is visibly intoxicated. However, one can only pursue this option when there is evidence the person supplying the alcohol had actual knowledge that the person to whom the drink was sold was visibly intoxicated at the time. Additionally, plaintiffs need to show the intoxication was the proximate cause of the damages alleged. Liability may also be imposed when the person to whom the alcohol was sold was under the age of 21.

The law does not distinguish between vendors who are licensed to serve alcoholic drinks and those who are social hosts providing alcohol for parties. Both can be held liable for furnishing alcohol to someone who goes on to harm another person due to their intoxication. Although this can apply to a number of different scenarios that result in injuries, it is most commonly applied to Indiana car accidents involving drunk driving.

In the case recently reported by The Star Press, the plaintiffs are not alleging dram shop liability against any vendors. Instead, they are pursuing action directly against the drunk driver. It is alleged the 18-year-old decedent was killed after suffering severe head injuries when the moped he was operating was struck from behind by a vehicle driven by the defendant in July 2015. At the time of the collision, the vehicle driver’s blood-alcohol content was 0.24, according to police. This is three times the legal limit of 0.08.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for the loss of their son’s love and companionship, as well as compensation for hospital, funeral, and legal expenses. It is also alleged the defendant was operating the vehicle not only while intoxicated but also while his license was suspended.

Liability in a case like this may not be difficult to prove. The bigger issue will be damages – how much the plaintiffs are owed and how much the defendant can actually pay. Most auto insurance plans carry coverage for accidents such as these, although a driver without a valid license is unlikely to have been covered. In these cases, the plaintiffs may have grounds to pursue coverage from their son’s uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage.

If you or a loved one has been injured in an Indiana drunk driving accident, our dedicated personal injury attorneys can help you explore your legal options.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Victim’s parents sue in fatal DWI case, July 2, 2017, By Douglas Walker, The Star Press

More Blog Entries: Gary Truck Accident Lawsuit Claims Trucking Company Negligent, July 19, 2017, Highland Drunk Driving Accident Lawyer Blog

In Rogers v. Martin, the plaintiff alleged the defendant, who co-hosted a house party at which alcohol was served, breached her landowner-invitee duty to exercise reasonable care to protect those on her property and also violated the state’s Dram Shop Act, resulting in harm to another person.

This case highlights the duty of care party hosts owe to their guests, which is an important consideration especially as we’re nearing the holidays, when there tends to be an increase in large gatherings.

According to court records, the defendant and her boyfriend (now husband) co-hosted a house party at a home she owned (and where her boyfriend lived on-and-off). In preparation for the get-together, the defendant’s boyfriend ordered a keg of beer, picked it up, and set it up in the garage. He paid for it with a debit card he and his girlfriend used for household expenses. The account was solely in his girlfriend’s name, but both contributed to the balance and regularly pooled their income to cover expenses, even though she earned much more than he did.

At this party, alcohol was served. Guests, who included friends and co-workers, began arriving at around 6 p.m. There were about 50 people in all. Two of those guests included the decedent and her boyfriend. The decedent’s boyfriend was a co-worker of the defendant’s boyfriend and had been personally invited to the party. Neither the defendant nor her boyfriend had previously met the decedent. Guests largely served themselves from the keg, although at one point, the defendant did serve her boyfriend and others at a poker table with a pitcher from the keg. The defendant did not monitor her boyfriend’s drinking, even though he was on probation for his second operating while intoxicated conviction.

The defendant went to bed at around 2 a.m. About 1.5 hours later, the defendant’s boyfriend asked the last of the guests to go, and for some reason, a fistfight broke out. The boyfriend went to get his girlfriend to ask for her help in getting the guests to leave. She did, and when she went to the basement, she saw the decedent motionless on the floor. She thought maybe he had simply drunk too much alcohol, but she suggested maybe he should be checked out at a local hospital, but she did not call 911. The two men carried the unconscious man upstairs and outside.

Ultimately, the police were called, and they discovered the decedent outside the home, dead. The defendant’s boyfriend was arrested, although prosecutors ultimately dropped the case, citing self-defense.

Later, the personal representative of the decedent’s estate claimed the defendant was liable for negligently causing the decedent’s injuries and for furnishing alcohol to her visibly intoxicated boyfriend, who assaulted the decedent, leading to his death.

The defendant filed for summary judgment on both claims, which the trial court granted, reasoning she was not negligent because Indiana doesn’t recognize the duty of a social host to render aid to a social guest and furthermore because she did not “furnish” beers to her boyfriend because the couple had exercised joint control over the alcohol.

The appellate court reversed, finding summary judgment was not proper because the defendant, as a social host, owed the decedent a duty to render aid, and there were questions of fact as to whether she breached that duty. Furthermore, there were questions of fact as to whether she had actually “furnished” alcohol to her boyfriend.

On review, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed in part.

With regard to the Dram Shop Act violation and the question of whether she “furnished” alcohol to the decedent’s attacker, the court ruled the plain meaning of the statute requires a transfer of possession. The couple jointly possessed the alcohol, and therefore the defendant could not have transferred possession to her boyfriend.

However, on the issue of negligence, a question of fact remained, the court ruled. In order to prevail, the plaintiff needs to show:

• The defendant owed a duty of care;
• The defendant breached that duty; and
• Her breach caused the plaintiff a compensable personal injury.

Here, the allegation was that the defendant was negligent in failing to render aid after finding him seriously injured on the floor of her basement. The appellate court ruled social hosts do have a duty to render aid. The Indiana Supreme Court agreed that summary judgment on the negligence claim was improper, but for a different reason. The justices ruled that the duty governing the defendant’s conduct, which is the duty to exercise reasonable care for an invitee on the premises, is already a duty outlined in existing premises liability law. Here, the question was whether the defendant owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect the decedent from the harm caused in the fistfight and whether she owed a duty to protect him from the exacerbation of his injuries after finding him unconscious. Since these questions remained unanswered, they should be answered at trial, the court ruled.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including in Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Rogers v. Martin, Oct. 26, 2016, Indiana Supreme Court

More Blog Entries: Bicyclists at Risk of Injury by Impatient, Careless Motorists, Oct. 7, 2016, Gary Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog

A recent Indiana decision, F. John Rogers, as Personal Representative of Paul Michalik, Deceased, and R. David Boyer, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Jerry Lee Chambers v. Angela Martin and Brian Paul Brothers, 02A05-1506-CT 520 increases the potential for liability and the responsibilities for a party host.

In that case, the land possessors, defendants Martin and Brothers shared a residence. They threw a party and alcohol was purchased using funds from a joint bank account. Jerry Lee Chambers was a guest at the party. The party lasted a long time and at some point a number of the guests participated in a poker game in the basement. Martin went to bed. As the party continued, Brothers and Martin became involved in an altercation. Brothers made Martin aware that there had been a fight. Martin got up and accompanied Brothers to the basement. They discovered Chambers laying face down and not moving. Martin had Brothers check on Chamber’s condition and was told that Chambers was unconscious. Martin expressed some concern that Chambers might have alcohol poisoning but at no time did she provide or seek medical assistance for him. Brothers also failed to do so. Subsequently, Chambers was found dead in the front yard. A wrongful death case was filed pursuant to the Indiana Dram Shop Act. The suit also claimed that the Martin and Brothers as land possessors breached a common law duty to use reasonable care for the protection of guests by failing to render aid.

Previously, Indiana law did not require an individual to render aid even if he or she knew that assistance was needed unless there were special relationships that created a duty such as a bus company and its passengers, or a hotel operator and guests, or a possessor of land who invites the public onto the property. The Rogers court added a new category when it ruled that a social host/guest relationship is a special relationship as it relates to the duty to render aid. Further, the Court stated that moral and humanitarian considerations may require a person to render aid, even if the injury was not caused by any of his or her negligent acts or were caused by the acts of the injured person. What is considered reasonable medical care will depend on all of the circumstances, including the background, education and training of the social host. So, Indiana residents who will be hosting holiday parties, NCAA Final Four Parties and Super Bowl Parties must be prepared to provide medical aid if their guests become injured or ill. If they fail to do so, they may find themselves being sued for damages, injuries or wrongful death as Ms. Martin was.

Finally, there is no reason to think that a court may not extend the duty to render aid beyond the social host situation. One example could be if a guest slips and falls on your property, and is injured, even without alcohol being a factor, and regardless of fault.

Attorney Burton A. Padove represents injury victims throughout Indiana and Illinois. Call (219) 836 2200 for a free and confidential consultation and to ask questions about damages, injuries and compensation.