Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 1 of 7

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

Taffanee L. Keys

The Keys Law Office

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE

Jennifer Lee, Esq.

Lee, Cossell & Crowley, LLP

Indianapolis, Indiana 

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Jessica Curd,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

Regina Harrington,

Appellee-Plaintiff. 

September 30, 2019

Court of Appeals Case No.

18A-SC-2598

Appeal from the Marion Small 

Claims Court, Wayne Township

The Hon. Gerald B. Coleman, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

49K08-1806-SC-3795

Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] In June of 2016, Jessica Curd attacked Regina Harrington at a party, scratching 

her face. As a result of the scratches, Harrington lost income and incurred 

medical expenses. Harrington brought a small claims battery action against 

Jessica, and the small claims court ultimately entered judgment in favor of 

Harrington for $6500.00. Jessica contends that neither the judgment nor the 

award of damages is supported by sufficient evidence. Because we disagree, we 

affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On June 12, 2016, Harrington was romantically involved with Armon Curd, 

the ex-husband of Jessica. That day, Harrington was invited to attend the 

Indianapolis graduation party of Armon and Jessica’s daughter, Lauren. As 

Harrington sat on a couch speaking with Simone Curd, another of Armon and 

Jessica’s daughters, she felt an “aggressive brush against [her] leg” from Jessica. 

Tr. Vol. II p. 64. Armon and Simone spoke with Jessica about her behavior, 

and “things seemed to dissipate.” Tr. Vol. II p. 65. Armon suggested to 

Harrington that she have some food, and she walked down a hallway to a buffet

in another room. Jessica followed and, as she bent down to get a bottle of 

water for her boyfriend, Harrington bumped into her. Harrington and Jessica 

then began to argue, and Jessica struck Harrington in the face, leaving several 

scratches. 

[3] An emergency medical technician treated Harrington at the scene, she sought 

further medical care the next day, and she was later treated by a dermatologist 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 3 of 7

and a scar revisionist, the latter of which she has seen over ten times. As a 

result of Jessica’s scratches, Harrington has incurred medical expenses of well 

over three thousand dollars, missed some work, and will have permanent 

scarring. 

[4] On June 4, 2018, Harrington brought a small claims battery action against 

Jessica, seeking $5000.00 in damages, a request later increased to $8000.00. 

The small claims court held a bench trial on August 28, 2019. Harrington 

testified that her injuries caused her to miss work, which, in turn, caused her 

yearly work bonus to drop from its average of $30,000.00 to approximately 

$15,000.00. Harrington indicated that her 

[t]otal losses in a dollar figure would definitely be more than 

thirty thousand. They far exceed the eight given the investment 

of time. I don’t even live in this state I’ve had to travel back and 

forth. My attorney fees, my time away from work, potential 

where I could have lost growth. [T]he mental anguish, I mean 

just in dealing with this whole deal. 

Tr. Vol. II p. 80. 

[5] On August 30, 2019, the small claims court entered a $6500.00 judgment in

favor of Harrington. The small claims court made the following findings 

relevant to the question of damages: 

14. Because [Harrington] suffered several lacerations on her 

face, paramedics were called and [Harrington] received

medical treatment.

15. [Harrington] had to subsequently cancel several work 

appointments because of her injuries.

16. [Harrington] had several visits with physicians about the 

injuries to her face.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 4 of 7

17. [Harrington]’s physicians indicate that there will be some 

permanent marks on her face in the form of scar tissue or 

loss of color. 

18. [Harrington] incurred approximately $3000.00 in medical 

bills.

Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 10. 

Discussion and Decision

[6] We review a small claims court’s judgment for clear error. Bokori v. Martinoski, 

70 N.E.3d 441, 443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A deferential standard of review is 

particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are informal with the 

sole objective of dispending speedy justice according to the rules of substantive 

law. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind. 2003). In conducting 

appellate review of a small claims court’s findings and conclusions after a bench 

trial, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all 

reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Estate of Henry v. Woods, 77 N.E.3d 

1200, 1204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess 

witness credibility. Id.

I. Liability

A. Self-Defense

[7] In Indiana, a person is liable for the tort of battery if she acts intending to cause 

harmful or offensive contact to another person or an imminent apprehension of 

such contact and harmful contact occurs. Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., 865 

N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind. 2007). “A touching, however slight, may constitute an 

assault and battery.” Knight v. Ind. Ins. Co., 871 N.E.2d 357, 362 (Ind. Ct. App. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 5 of 7

2007). Jessica does not deny that she scratched Harrington but contends, 

essentially, that the small claims court erred in not finding that she acted in selfdefense. Jessica points to her testimony that (1) Harrington intentionally 

bumped into her as she was bent over, causing her to lose balance, (2) she put 

her arm up because it appeared that Harrington was about to strike her, and (3) 

she struck Harrington after first being struck. The small claims court, however, 

was under no obligation to credit Jessica’s testimony that she acted in selfdefense and did not. Jessica’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to 

reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Estate of Henry, 77 N.E.3d at 

1204. 

B. Incurred Risk

[8] Jessica also argues that her liability should be mitigated because Harrington 

incurred the risk that Harrington might be injured. “Incurred risk can be found 

as a matter of law only if the evidence is without conflict and the sole inference 

to be drawn is that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the danger caused by the 

defendant’s negligence, but nevertheless accepted it voluntarily.” Lilge v. 

Russell’s Trailer Repair, Inc., 565 N.E.2d 1146, 1150–51 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). 

Jessica bases this argument, as she did her first, upon her testimony and seems 

to be arguing that Harrington should be assessed a greater portion of fault 

because of her testimony that Harrington was the initial aggressor. At the very 

least, while it is true that the trial court found that Harrington bumped Jessica, 

it did not find that Harrington did so intentionally. This argument, as with 

Jessica’s first, is based on the notion that the small claims court was required to 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 6 of 7

credit her version of events, which it was not. We reject Jessica’s second 

invitation to reweigh the evidence. See Estate of Henry, 77 N.E.3d at 1204. 

II. Damages

[9] Finally, Jessica argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the small 

claims court’s award of $6500.00 in damages to Harrington. We disagree. 

Harrington testified that, as result of Jessica’s battery, she incurred more than 

$3000.00 in medical bills, lost approximately $15,000.00 of bonus income, and 

suffered other losses, with the total coming to over $30,000.00. This testimony 

is certainly more than enough to sustain an award of $6500.00 in damages. See 

Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong, 442 N.E.2d 349, 357 (Ind. 1982) (“[U]nder the 

evidence presented, the jury was at liberty to award as much as $10,000.00 [...] 

or as little as $4,250.00[.] The [$8729.62] verdict was within the limits of the 

evidence and cannot be disturbed.”). 

[10] Jessica claims that the small claims court’s award is partially based on a 

$3000.00 surgery that had not yet occurred at the time of trial and may never 

occur. To the extent that the small claims court’s findings address medical 

expenses, however, they address only the medical expenses incurred by 

Harrington prior to trial. Jessica also suggests that any claims of damages 

without documentation cannot be awarded. Jessica does not cite to any 

authority for the proposition that testimony unsupported by documentation is 

insufficient to support an award of damages, and we are aware of none. 

Finally, Jessica points to some evidence that she claims tends to undercut 

Harrington’s evidence as to damages. Even if we assume, arguendo, that Jessica 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 7 of 7

is correct that the evidence she identifies undercuts Harrington’s, it was the 

small-claims court’s job to evaluate the evidence, and we will not second-guess 

its conclusions in this regard. See Estate of Henry, 77 N.E.3d at 1204. 

[11] We affirm the judgment of the small claims court. 

Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.