Court Opinion

ID: 9729864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:51:00.421904+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:01.820187
License: Public Domain

RILEY, Judge,
dissenting with separate opinion.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's opinion reversing the trial court's order which granted Mary's motion to correct error and amended the jury's damages award.
On December 9, 2005, Mary initiated this action by filing a Complaint for Wrongful Death. During the trial, Mary presented uncontroverted evidence of damages incurred by C.J.'s estate or by her as a result of C.J.'s death. Specifically, she presented evidence of medical expenses, funeral expenses, and C.J.'s social security disability income. Although the majority now focuses its decision on the fact that a survival claim was tried by implied consent of the parties, the jury was not instructed on any causes of action other than wrongful death. Nevertheless, based upon this survival claim, the majority opines that the jury could reasonably find Menard's partially Hable for C.J.'s fall but not his death. As such, the majority determined the total jury award of $24,638.97 to be within the evidence presented.
However, Indiana Trial Rule 59(J) gives a trial court the discretion to amend a jury award in the case of inadequate damages. The trial court, finding that the jury had erred in its award by failing to calculate CJ's lost income, increased the jury award to $149,240.71. I cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion as Mary clearly proceeded under a wrongful death claim, presented uncontroverted evidence of C.J.'s lost income, and the jury was instructed as to the wrongful death claim-not the survival claim.