Opinion ID: 2040699
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Templins Were Entitled to Judgment on the Pleadings

Text: Fobes also asserts that the trial court properly denied the Templins' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. We conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly held that the Templins were entitled to judgment because Fobes failed to name the non-party within the statutory limits. Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, Ind. Code Ann. § 34-4-33-1 through § 34-4-33-13 (West Supp. 1992), provides a scheme for allocating liability among persons whose negligence has contributed to an injury. Under the Act, the total fault for an accident is divided among the plaintiff, defendant, and any other negligent person who is referred to as a nonparty. Ind. Code § 34-4-33-5. The burden of pleading and proving a nonparty defense is upon the defendant. Ind. Code § 34-4-33-10(b). One premise underlying the assignment of fault to a culpable nonparty is that the nonparty must be subject to civil liability. Cornell Harbison Excavating, Inc. v. May (1989), Ind., 546 N.E.2d 1186, 1187. An unidentified nonparty is not subject to civil liability. Id. In Cornell Harbison, the plaintiff attempted to avoid striking a dog that had run into the roadway. As a result, plaintiff's automobile swerved off the roadway and struck some pipe that had been stored in a ditch. Plaintiff sued a contractor for negligent storage of the pipe. In turn, the contractor listed the unknown owner of the dog as a nonparty. The identity of the owner was not known to the plaintiff or defendant and, as a result, was never named. This Court held that defendant was barred from presenting a nonparty defense at trial because the defendant had not named the nonparty in a timely manner. 546 N.E.2d at 1187. In holding that the nonparty must be identified by name before fault can be assigned to it, this Court noted that the Comparative Fault Act sacrificed a true apportionment of damages among all tortfeasors in favor of maximizing recovery by the injured plaintiff where the nonparty cannot be identified. Id. at 1187. This Court also noted that the plain meaning of Ind. Code § 34-4-33-6 requires the disclosure of the name of the nonparty not merely a generic identification. Id. Fobes attempts to distinguish this case from Cornell Harbison on the grounds that the Templins knew Rockwood was the nonparty. Thus, argues Fobes, because it is undisputed that the Templins had actual knowledge of the nonparty within the relevant statutory period, the purpose of Ind. Code § 34-4-33-10(c) has been fulfilled. Furthermore, Fobes argues, even if the trial court erred in denying the motion, the Templins were not prejudiced because they have a suit pending against Rockwood. We are not persuaded that the rule established in Cornell Harbison should be different even if both sides in a dispute are aware of the identity of the nonparty. As we noted in Cornell Harbison, the language of the statute makes clear that the defendant has the burden of pleading a nonparty defense. A rule that shifts the burden of pleading to the plaintiff would violate the plain language of the statute. Furthermore, the Templins do not concede that they knew Rockwood was the only nonparty contemplated by Fobes in his non-party defense. A rule which shifts the burden of naming a nonparty to the party with knowledge could result in irrelevant, ancillary issues. We hold that the trial court should not have considered the state of the Templins' knowledge in ruling on their motion for judgment on the pleadings. Instead, the court should have considered only whether the pleadings demonstrated that Fobes had timely named Rockwood as the nonparty. The pleadings reveal that Rockwood was not named by Fobes within the time allowed by Ind. Code § 34-4-33-6. Therefore, the Templins were entitled to judgment on the pleadings, and Fobes should not have been permitted to present a nonparty defense at trial. The prejudice to the Templins from the denial of their motion, that the jury was permitted to assign fault among three parties rather than two, requires that they receive a new trial. [2]