Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 1 of 18

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this 

Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as 

precedent or cited before any court except for the 

purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

Steven P. Polick

Steven P. Polick & Associates, P.C.

Griffith, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

David Cerven

Highland, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

SVT, LLC d/b/a ULTRA 

FOODS,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Benny Becchino,

Appellee-Plaintiff

March 31, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

45A03-1407-CT-238

Appeal from the Lake Superior 

Court Civil Division

The Honorable John R. Pera, Judge

Case No. 45D10-1205-CT-00090

Vaidik, Chief Judge.

Case Summary

[1] Benny Becchino, who had preexisting shoulder injuries, slipped and fell while 

shopping at an Ultra Foods grocery store. After the fall, his shoulder pain 

worsened and ultimately required surgery. The store’s third-party administrator 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 2 of 18

denied Becchino’s initial injury claim in part on the ground that the area where 

he fell had been swept fifteen minutes prior to the fall. Becchino filed suit 

against SVT, LLC (SVT), and asked in his initial discovery request for all 

surveillance tapes or any other depiction of Becchino’s fall and/or the fall scene 

on or about the date of the fall. SVT produced surveillance footage beginning 

approximately fourteen minutes before Becchino’s fall, and when Becchino 

asked for more of the surveillance footage, it had already been automatically 

recorded over. At trial, Becchino argued and requested a jury instruction on 

spoliation of the evidence. Becchino also set out to prove and submitted a jury 

instruction stating that there was no logical basis for apportionment of damages 

and, as such, SVT was liable for the entire amount. Because we find that there 

was evidence supporting the spoliation instruction and the apportionment 

instruction was a correct statement of law, the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion in issuing these instructions. We affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On March 26, 2012, at 11:27 a.m., Benny Becchino was shopping for a few 

items at SVT’s Ultra Foods in Highland, Indiana, when he slipped and fell. 

After he fell, he noticed that on the floor “there was wet stuff and [] two 

grapes.” Tr. p. 428. He stood up quickly and was approached by seafood 

manager Janice Witt, who had witnessed Becchino’s fall. Witt also saw the 

grapes on the floor – “one that [was] smashed and one that was whole.” Id. at
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 3 of 18

658. Witt called store manager Vince McDonnell, who came to the scene and 

made a “Customer Injury Report.” 

[3] In the report, the “Nature and Extent of Injury” is reported as: “LEFT 

SHOULDER HURTS, L [L is circled] KNEE HURTS.” Ex. 23. On the 

second page of the report, STATEMENT OF INJURED, Becchino filled in his 

name and the explanation of the incident: “I, Benny Becchino, do hereby offer 

the following explanation of the above incident. Slipped & fell from grapes on 

floor.” Id. Below this, there is a section with the heading WITNESS

STATEMENT, which reads as follows: “I, Jan Witt, do hereby offer the 

following explanation of the above incident. Sa[w] him slip on grapes jumped 

back up and held his back.” Id. According to store manager McDonnell, this 

report then went to the safety manager to make sure that all of the information 

was filled in, and also to loss prevention “to . . . see if they could find this 

incident on video and burn the disc for it.” Tr. p. 286. 

[4] When loss prevention receives a report, they “go back to the camera where the 

incident happened . . . to see if they can see the event.” Id. at 277. Lossprevention people watch the footage and burn to a disc what they think is 

relevant. Then, because the cameras are on “kind of a loop[,]” every sixty days 

the digital footage gets copied over. Id. Once the footage is recorded over, it

cannot be restored. 

[5] On the day of Becchino’s fall, Kevin Sahm was the utility clerk assigned to 

sweeping the store floors. The utility clerk assigned to floors is supposed to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 4 of 18

respond to clean-up calls promptly as well as sweep the store floors every two 

hours. As to the regular sweeping of the store, there is a “sweep log” in which 

the utility clerk records his sweeping activity. Id. at 699. Sahm’s regular 

practice was to write in the sweep log that each sweep took fifteen minutes,

even when a sweep actually took longer to complete. Id. at 700. So, for 

instance, a typical sweep log might read as follows: 7:00 to 7:15, 9:00 to 9:15, 

and so forth. On the day of Becchino’s fall, March 26, Sahm wrote on the 

sweep log that he had swept from 11:00 to 11:15 in the morning. Ex. 24. 

[6] Before his fall at Ultra Foods, Becchino suffered from long-term pre-existing 

conditions in his back and shoulders. He had previously had four surgeries on 

his shoulders (two on each side), the last of which was in 2004. From 2004 to 

2012, when the fall occurred, Becchino “always had some pain in there. . . . But 

he was capable of doing things.” Tr. p. 417. He did not receive any treatment 

on his shoulders—including physical therapy or pain medication—during this 

time period. 

[7] After he finished filling out the customer injury report with McDonnell, 

Becchino bought a couple of items at Ultra Foods, and then went on to another 

store afterwards. The next morning, however, Becchino went to the emergency 

room complaining of shoulder pain, and an x-ray was performed. Becchino 

then saw a nurse practitioner, who recommended that he see an orthopaedic 

surgeon, David J. Harris, M.D. Becchino visited Dr. Harris on April 3, and 

received Cortisone injections behind his shoulders. MRIs revealed “recurrent 

tears in the rotator cuff tendons. On the left side, he had his acromioclavicular 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 5 of 18

joint cleaned out.” Id. at 560. Ultimately, months later, Becchino had surgery

performed on his right shoulder followed by physical therapy. Id. at 451. 

[8] Shortly after the fall, Becchino filed a claim with SVT’s third-party 

administrator, who responded by a letter dated April 11, 2012. This letter reads 

in relevant part as follows:

. . . Our investigation confirms you were walking in front of the food 

promotion area at the end of aisle number 2. You slipped and fell onto 

the floor after stepping on a grape. The incident did not occur in the 

produce area. There were only 2 grapes found on the floor. The store 

did not have any prior notice of loose grapes on the floor in the aisle. 

A sweep of the floors in the store was completed fifteen minutes prior 

to your fall. Our obligation is to pay claims where evidence places 

legal liability on our insured. Therefore, we respectfully deny liability 

on the part of our insured for this loss. 

Ex. 38. 

[9] Becchino’s attorney filed suit on May 2, 2012, about a month after the slip and 

fall. In his request for production of documents sent on May 16, Becchino 

requested “All pictures, videos, surveillance tapes or any other depiction 

showing the Plaintiff’s fall and/or the fall scene on or about March 26, 2012 at 

Ultra Foods . . . .” Id.; Tr. p. 41-43.1 But the only surveillance footage that was 

preserved from the day of Becchino’s fall begins at 11:13 a.m., fourteen minutes 

 

1

In the transcript, Becchino’s counsel tells the trial court, and SVT does not dispute, that the request for 

production of documents was sent on May 16, 2012. But in the appendix and at Ex. 38, there are identical 

unsigned copies of this document, with the statement below Certificate of Service reading as follows: “I 

certify that on June 1, 2012, a true and complete copy of the above and foregoing pleading or paper was 

made upon each party or attorney of record herein . . . .” Appellant’s App. p. 18 (emphasis added); Ex. 38. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 6 of 18

before Becchino’s 11:27 a.m. fall. Store manager McDonnell had reviewed the 

surveillance footage for thirty to forty-five minutes before Becchio fell, and had 

not seen Sahm sweeping in those videos. Tr. p. 399. 

[10] On June 21 SVT responded to this specific request for production of documents

as follows:

Attached are copies of four photographs taken at the scene on the date 

of the Plaintiff’s incident. Also submitted with this Response to 

Request for Production of Documents is a disk containing copies of 

the videos depicting the Plaintiff on the day of the accident.

Appellant’s App. p. 19. On June 27 Becchino’s attorney sent a letter stating 

that he had reviewed portions of the discovery responses, including the

surveillance video, and was interested in seeing the video of the area where 

Becchino fell starting at 10:00 a.m. Id. at 22. He also requested video from the 

“camera in the produce section” from 10:00 a.m. onwards. Id. But this 

surveillance footage was no longer available as this second request was now 

beyond the 60-day window after which the video was recorded over. Tr. p. 39. 

[11] A jury trial was held on March 24 - 26, 2014. At trial, Dr. Harris testified by 

way of his deposition as to the effect of the fall: 

[Becchino’s attorney]: . . . What role, if any, did the fall play in his left 

shoulder?

[Dr. Harris]: Well, as far as did this – was it the sole cause of his 

tendon tearing or it worsening? With his current tendon tearing, it’s 

difficult to be exact [] because . . . I didn’t have a full image of what 

things looked like prior. But, certainly, Mr. Becchino’s symptoms, 

according to him, had dramatically progressed.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 7 of 18

[Becchino’s attorney]: All right. So what -- sometimes we say there 

can be an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. Are you familiar 

with that?

[Dr. Harris]: Absolutely.

* * * * * 

[Becchino’s attorney]: Can you apportion the degree of the 

aggravation due to the fall versus what was there before?

[Dr. Harris]: I don’t think with any medical certainty.

Id. at 551-52. 

[12] At trial Becchino testified that from a “functional standpoint,” the kinds of 

things that cause pain now that didn’t before he fell include: “Hanging up a 

coat. Putting stuff in the microwave. Everyday things. My fishing. Just 

washing your hair. You know, whenever you move them arms upwards[.]. . .” 

Id. at 455. 

[13] During the jury-instruction conference, counsel for Becchino asked the trial 

court to issue an instruction on spoliation of the evidence. Specifically, 

Becchino’s counsel argued that his initial, general request for production of 

documents—which he intended as a request for “the whole day,” id. at 752—

was sent within the sixty-day window of opportunity before which the 

surveillance video was recorded over. The parties disagreed over the correct 

statement of law on spoliation. The trial court stated as follows:

So we’ve got the claims people saying to the Plaintiff, we swept the 

area 15 minutes before you fell. . . . [H]owever, then we get to trial and 

we’ve got the testimony of the store manager saying, I looked at the 

video, as of quarter to 11:00 there was nobody sweeping the floor. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 8 of 18

Now there’s an inference there . . . that between the time this letter was 

written and at some point thereafter . . . it was discovered that the 

video didn’t support the assertion that the floor had been swept. 

Which leads to an inference, perhaps, that it was intentionally 

destroyed as a result of that.

In any event, it’s clear that as of the date of the request for production 

that was sent over to the Defendant . . . and still within that 60 day 

window when the video was available, the Plaintiff asked for video of 

March 26th. I think, at that point, the Defendant was on notice that 

that video should have been preserved for the entire day.

So, I do think that the instruction is warranted. The objection of the 

Defendant is overruled. And I’ll be[] giving it in [the] form of [Model 

Instruction] 535.[2] 

Id. at 757-58. Thereafter, the trial court instructed the jury as to spoliation as 

follows: 

If a party fails to produce evidence under the party’s exclusive control, 

you may conclude that the evidence the party could have produced 

would have been unfavorable to the party’s case.

Id. at 792. 

[14] Becchino’s counsel also requested an instruction on apportionment of damages, 

Plaintiff’s Jury Instruction No. 6, which reads as follows:

A pre-existing condition, if aggravated by a defendant’s conduct, may 

result in the defendant’s full liability for the resulting injury. If there is 

no basis for apportionment between the pre-existing condition and the 

 

2 Model Instruction No. 535 reads as follows: 

If a party fails to . . . [produce documents] under the party’s exclusive . . . [control], you may 

conclude that the . . . [documents the witness could have produced] would have been 

unfavorable to the party’s case. 

Ind. Model Civil Jury Instructions, Instruction No. 535 (Ind. Judges Ass’n 2014). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 9 of 18

extent of the aggravation, then the defendant is liable for the entire 

injury.

Appellee’s App. p. 1. SVT put forth Indiana Model Civil Jury Instruction No. 

926 (Model Instruction 926), which reads as follows: “Plaintiff, Benny 

Becchino, is not entitled to recover damages for any physical condition that 

existed before the incident.” Id. at 2 (citing Ind. Model Civil Jury Instructions, 

Instruction No. 926 (Ind. Judges Ass’n 2014)).

[15] At the instruction conference, as the parties argued over instructions regarding 

apportionment, the following colloquy occurred:

The [trial c]ourt: . . . [i]s there a Model [Instruction] . . . with respect to 

Plaintiff’s Number 6?

[Becchino’s counsel]: I couldn’t find one, your Honor. That’s why I 

drafted this one. . . . I went through this with the doctor. I asked him 

twice, can you apportion; and he said, no, I can’t. And this – that 

Dunn [v. Cadiente, 516 N.E.2d 52 (Ind. 1987)] case says [] – it’s my 

burden. And if I meet it and it can’t be apportioned, then they eat it 

all. They’re responsible for the entire injury. That’s why I went 

through that exercise with the physician. And they haven’t come forth 

with any proof to dispute that.

The [trial c]ourt: All right.

[SVT’s counsel]: My turn? It’s directly contrary to the Model 

Instruction 926. 926 says plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages 

for any physical condition that existed before the incident. Period. It’s 

contrary to Indiana law. . . . If you look at the committee comments . 

. . talking about an aggravation of a previous injury . . . I’m quoting: 

A defendant is ordinarily liable for the aggravation or exacerbation of 

a pre-existing condition, comma, but not for the condition as it was. 

[citations omitted]. . . . So, this concept that, well, if the doctor can’t 

say how much was aggravated, we buy the whole enchilada, is just 

complete nonsense.

[Becchino’s counsel]: . . . [T]hat’s the law in Indiana, your Honor. . . . 

[T]he Supreme Court said that in Ca[d]iente . . . . I met my burden. I 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 10 of 18

asked the doctor, can you apportion it. And he said twice in this 

deposition, no. 

* * * * * 

The [trial c]ourt: I’m giving the instruction. It is supported by the 

evidence and the principle of law [] as annunciated in Dunn [v. 

Caliente]. 

Tr. p. 764-69.

[16] Before giving final instructions to the jury, the trial court asked the attorneys if 

there were any objections to the final jury instructions, and SVT’s counsel 

responded, “None other than what we argued previously, Judge.” Id. at 787. 

[17] Ultimately, the trial court instructed the jury on apportionment as follows:

Generally, a plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for any 

physical condition that existed before the accident. However, a preexisting condition, if aggravated by a defendant’s conduct, may result 

in the defendant’s full liability for the resulting injury. If there is no 

basis for apportionment between the pre-existing condition and the 

extent of the aggravation, then the defendant is liable for the entire 

injury. 

Id. at 798. Thus, the trial court combined the two instructions – Plaintiff’s Jury

Instruction No. 6 and Defendant’s Jury Instruction No. 4 (or Model Instruction 

926). 

[18] Following the trial, on March 26 the jury returned a verdict in favor of 

Becchino, in the amount of $350,000 plus costs. On April 21, 2014, SVT filed a 

motion to correct error, arguing that the judgment was excessive and was a 

result of erroneous jury instructions. Appellant’s App. p. 31. The trial court 

denied the motion to correct error. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 11 of 18

[19] SVT now appeals. 

Discussion and Decision

[20] In reviewing a trial court’s decision to give or refuse a tendered jury instruction, 

this Court considers whether the instruction (1) correctly states the law, (2) is 

supported by evidence in the trial record, and (3) is covered in substance by 

other instructions. Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Lardydell, 8 N.E.3d 241, 246 (Ind. 

Ct. App. 2014). The trial court has discretion in instructing the jury and will be 

reversed on the last two points only when the instructions amount to an abuse

of discretion. Id. To constitute an abuse of discretion, the instructions given 

must be erroneous, and the instructions taken as a whole must misstate the law

or otherwise mislead the jury. O’Connell v. State, 970 N.E.2d 168, 172 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012). As to the question of whether the instruction is supported by the 

evidence, we note that the quantum of evidence necessary for the giving of an 

instruction is deliberately set at a relatively low level in order to assure the right 

of parties to have the trier of fact determine factual disputes and to preserve the 

constitutional right to trial by jury. Upham v. Morgan Cnty. Hosp., 986 N.E.2d 

834, 838 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), reh’g denied. Furthermore, under the abuse-ofdiscretion standard, we “view the evidence in a light most favorable to the 

decision” of the trial court. Musgrave v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 995 N.E.2d 621, 

638 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (quoting Short v. State, 962 N.E.2d 146, 148 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2012)). 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 12 of 18

I. Spoliation Instruction

[21] SVT argues first that the trial court abused its discretion in giving Indiana 

Model Civil Jury Instruction 535 on spoliation to the jury because there was no 

evidence that SVT intended to destroy or otherwise suppress evidence. See

Appellant’s Br. p. 14. “Spoliation” is defined as “[t]he intentional destruction, 

mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence . . . .” Black’s Law Dictionary

1620 (10th ed. 2014). In Indiana, the exclusive possession of facts or evidence 

by a party, coupled with the suppression of the facts or evidence by that party, 

may result in an inference that the production of the evidence would be against 

the interest of the party that suppresses it. Porter v. Irvin’s Interstate Brick & Block 

Co., Inc., 691 N.E.2d 1363, 1364-65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Westervelt v. 

Nat’l Mfg Co., 33 Ind. App. 18, 69 N.E. 169, 172 (1903)). “While this rule will 

not be carried to the extent of relieving a party of the burden of proving his case, 

it may be considered as a circumstance in drawing reasonable inferences from 

the facts established.” Id. at 1365 (quoting Great Am. Tea Co. v. Van Buren, 218 

Ind. 462, 33 N.E.2d 580, 581 (1941)). The rule not only applies when a party 

actively endeavors to prevent disclosure of facts, but also when the party 

“merely fails to produce available evidence.” Id. (quoting Morris v. Buchanan, 

220 Ind. 510, 44 N.E.2d 166, 169 (1942)). These spoliation cases are directed to 

a party which has suppressed evidence believed to be in its control at the time of 

the lawsuit; however, this Court wrote, “we see no reason why they should not 

be applied where the party spoliates evidence prior to the commencement of a 

law suit that the party knew or should have known was imminent.” Id. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 13 of 18

[22] In this case, the trial court gave the following spoliation instruction to the jury:

If a party fails to produce evidence under the party’s exclusive control, 

you may conclude that the evidence the party could have produced 

would have been unfavorable to the party’s case.

Tr. p. 792. On appeal, SVT does not dispute that that the instruction is a 

correct statement of law; instead, SVT argues that the trial court abused its 

discretion in giving the spoliation instruction because there is no evidence that 

SVT “actively endeavor[ed] to prevent disclosure of facts.” Appellant’s Br. p. 

12. SVT continues: 

[T]he Indiana spoliation model instruction requires that the missing 

evidence be in the exclusive control of the party and that the party 

failed to turn it over in response to specific written discovery. The 

finder of fact can only determine the second element of spoliation, 

culpability, after determining which materials a party was asked to 

produce, whether they were in it exclusive possession, and[] when the 

request was made. 

Id. at 18. Here, SVT maintains that Becchino’s original discovery request for 

“All pictures, videos, surveillance tapes or any other depiction showing the 

Plaintiff’s fall and/or the fall scene on or about March 26, 2012 at Ultra Foods . 

. . .” was not specific enough to warrant the inference that SVT’s failure to 

produce video footage from earlier than fourteen minutes before Becchino’s fall

rose to the level of spoliation. Appellant’s App. p. 16. Becchino contends, 

however, that SVT’s initial denial of Becchino’s claim on the ground that the 

area had been swept fifteen minutes before the fall coupled with the failure to 

produce and preserve footage from earlier than fourteen minutes before the fall 

adequately supports the giving of the spoliation instruction. We agree.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 14 of 18

[23] Becchino’s fall occurred on March 26, 2012. In a letter dated April 11, SVT’s 

third-party administrator denied liability, in part on the ground that “A sweep 

of the floors in the store was completed fifteen minutes prior to your fall.” See 

Ex. 38. Becchino filed his complaint on May 2, and his initial request for 

production of documents was on May 16 – within the sixty-day window before 

the store’s surveillance footage is recorded over. In this initial discovery 

request, he asked for “All pictures, videos, surveillance tapes or any other 

depiction showing the Plaintiff’s fall and/or the fall scene on or about March 26, 

2012 at Ultra Foods . . . .” Ex. 38 (emphasis added). Furthermore, as argued 

by Becchino:

Vince McDonnell, the store’s manager, . . . knew that the sweep log 

for the day of the fall completed by Kevin Sahm was not accurate. He 

even looked at the video, as did loss prevention, well before the sixty 

(60) day loop period knowing Sahm’s sweep times were inaccurate, 

knowing a sweep of the area was important to the defense of a claim, 

yet SVT failed to preserve the only evidence that would have shown if 

and when the area where Becchino fell was last swept. 

Appellee’s Br. p. 19 (internal citations omitted). 

[24] SVT concedes in its reply brief that the level of culpability “can range from 

negligent conduct to intentional destruction.” Appellant’s Reply Br. p. 3. The 

quantum of evidence necessary for the giving of an instruction is deliberately set 

at a relatively low level in order to assure the right of parties to have the trier of 

fact determine factual disputes and to preserve the constitutional right to trial by 

jury. See Upham, 986 N.E.2d at 838. Here, viewing the evidence in the light 

most favorable to the trial court’s decision, we find that there was ample 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 15 of 18

evidence that SVT was at least negligent in failing to preserve surveillance 

footage of the day of Becchino’s fall. See Musgrave, 995 N.E.2d at 638. Thus 

the trial court did not abuse its discretion in issuing the spoliation jury 

instruction. 

II. Apportionment Instruction

[25] Next SVT contends that the jury instruction on apportionment was not a 

complete or correct statement of Indiana law. The trial court has broad 

discretion as to how to instruct the jury, and we generally review that discretion 

only for abuse. Id. at 637. Where, however, as here, the appellant’s challenge 

to the instruction is that the instruction was an incorrect statement of law, we 

review the trial court’s interpretation of that law de novo. Id. (quotation 

omitted). 

[26] When the attorneys argued over the apportionment instructions at the 

instruction conference, Becchino’s attorney tendered “Plaintiff’s Jury 

Instruction No. 6,” an instruction based on the Dunn case, which relies on

Prosser’s approach: 

Where a logical basis can be found for some rough practical 

apportionment, which limits a defendant’s liability to that part of the 

harm which he has in fact caused, it may be expected that the division 

will be made. Where no such basis can be found and any division 

must be purely arbitrary, there is no practical course except to hold the 

defendant for the entire loss, notwithstanding the fact that other causes 

have contributed to it. 

Dunn, 516 N.E.2d at 56 (quoting William Prosser, Torts, at 314 (4th ed. 1971). 

Becchino’s specific proposed instruction read as follows:
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 16 of 18

A pre-existing condition, if aggravated by a defendant’s conduct, may 

result in the defendant’s full liability for the resulting injury. If there is 

no basis for apportionment between the pre-existing condition and the 

extent of the aggravation, then the defendant is liable for the entire 

injury.

Appellee’s App. p. 1. 

[27] SVT, on the other hand, submitted “Defendant’s Jury Instruction No. 4”—

based on Model Instruction No. 926—which reads as follows: “Plaintiff, 

Benny Becchino, is not entitled to recover damages for any physical condition 

that existed before the accident.” Id. at 2. SVT’s counsel also argued that 

Becchino’s apportionment instruction was “directly contrary to the Model 

Instruction 926.” Tr. p. 765. SVT continued: 

926 says plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for any physical 

condition that existed before the incident. Period. It’s contrary to 

Indiana law. It’s contrary to the Model Instruction, which, of course, 

your Honor knows, we all know is, you know, the most well-settled 

aspect of Indiana law once it make it’s [sic] way to a jury instruction. 

Id. at 766.

[28] Ultimately the trial court announced that it would issue the following jury 

instruction on apportionment:

Generally, a plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages for any 

physical condition that existed before the accident. However, a preexisting condition, if aggravated by a defendant’s conduct, may result 

in the defendant’s full liability for the resulting injury. If there is no 

basis for apportionment between the pre-existing condition and the 

extent of the aggravation, then the defendant is liable for the entire 

injury. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 17 of 18

Id. at 798. Thus, the trial court had combined both parties’ apportionment 

instructions – Plaintiff’s Jury Instruction No. 6 and Defendant’s Jury 

Instruction No. 4 (or Model Instruction 926). After tendering the final 

instruction to the parties, the trial court asked if there were any objections. SVT 

responded, “None other than what we argued previously, Judge.” Id. at 787. 

[29] On appeal, SVT contends that “there was testimony that a logical basis for a 

‘rough practical apportionment’ existed.” Appellant’s App. p. 25 (emphasis 

added). Specifically, SVT cites to the following—the “most crucial piece of 

testimony given by Dr. Harris,” Appellant’s Br. p. 25—from Dr. Harris’s cross 

examination:

[SVT’s counsel]: . . . [B]ut you can’t really say how much of an 

aggravation was generated by the fall at the grocery store?

[Dr. Harris]: Well, the way I [] would probably choose to look at this 

would be that it was enough to cause a man who had been dealing 

with pain for eight years to decide to have another operation.

Tr. p. 612-13. Contrary to SVT’s assertion, this testimony simply does not 

provide a “logical basis” for some “rough practical apportionment.” See Dunn, 

516 N.E.2d at 56. In other words, Dr. Harris does not provide, in this excerpt 

of his testimony or any other, a concrete, definitive answer—in terms of 

percentages, monetary value or some other form of valuation—as to how much 

of Becchino’s injury was due to his pre-existing condition and how much was 

exacerbated by the fall at Ultra Foods. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 45A03-1407-CT-238 | March 31, 2015 Page 18 of 18

[30] We find that the rule of law is clear on this point, and is consistently spelled out 

even in the cases relied upon by SVT.3 See, e.g., Robertson v. B.O., 977 N.E.2d 

341, 346 (Ind. 2012) (“A pre-existing condition or susceptibility, if aggravated 

by a defendant’s conduct, may result in a defendant’s full liability for the 

resulting injury and loss. However, if the pre-existing condition, standing 

alone, independently causes injury and loss, a defendant will not be liable for 

such damages.”) (quoting Dunn, 516 N.E.2d at 56). The trial court’s 

apportionment instruction was a correct statement of the law. Thus we cannot 

say the trial court abused its discretion in giving either of the challenged jury 

instructions. 

Affirmed. 

Baker, J., and Riley, J., concur.

 

3 We note that SVT relies in part on an unpublished memorandum opinion in support of its argument. This 

is contrary to Indiana Appellate Rule 65, which provides: “[A] memorandum decision shall not be regarded

as precedent and shall not be cited to any court except by the parties to the case to establish res judicata, 

collateral estoppel, or law of the case.” See Ind. App. R. 65(D). A court-rule violation of this nature 

significantly undermines our confidence in counsel’s credibility.