Court Opinion

ID: 9541327
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:24:28.435247+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:44.804062
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the majority but write separately to emphasize that our affirmance of the trial court's decision with respect to the jury instruction on loss of chanee damages should not be interpreted as a conclusion that the instruction was appropriate. To the contrary, as noted by the majority, our Supreme Court has disapproved of a very similar instruction because it was unclear but has stopped short of finding it to be erroneous. Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535, 544 (Ind.2000). The Cahoon court instructed the parties to clarify the instruction on remand. Id. Here, the majority echoes this disapproval by saying that the trial court's jury instruction was "not as complete as it should be," Op. p. 938, but declining to go so far as to find it to be erroneous.
In light of Cahoon and this case, I caution parties and trial courts to avoid using this or a similar jury instruction. While we have not yet gone so far as to find it to be erroneous, we have now issued two warnings about its lack of clarity and completeness, and we are fast approaching a time when it will no longer be a sufficient statement of the law.
Accordingly, I suggest that litigants and trial courts hone the jury instruction regarding loss of chance damages. To that end, I suggest that the following would be a clearer and more appropriate statement of the law as it currently stands:
In determining the amount of damages to award the plaintiff, you must decide whether the defendant's negligence caused a decrease in the plaintiff's life expectancy.
To make this determination, you should carefully consider the evidence presented as to what plaintiff's normal life expectancy would have been had the alleged negligent acts or omissions not occurred, compared to her life expectancy now as shown by the evidence.
If you find that the plaintiff has a decreased life expectancy proximately *950caused by the defendant's negligence, then you may award such damages as you believe will fairly compensate the plaintiff for this loss. You must value plaintiff's damages based upon the difference between the plaintiff's life expectancy before and after defendant's negli-genee. In addition to considering the change in plaintiff's overall life expectancy, you may also consider the loss of opportunity for a eure and unnecessary physical pain and mental suffering.
In considering the extent of loss of life expectancy, you may consider the medical and statistical evidence submitted by the parties to guide your determination.
If you decide that the plaintiff has a decreased life expectancy proximately caused by the defendant's negligence, you are not to assess damages that would occur beyond the life expectancy determined by you.
See Alexander v. Scheid, 726 N.E.2d 272, 282-83; Burke, Kevin G., A New Remedy for a Life Cut Short, 40-MAR Trial 64, 64 n. 1, 66-67 (March 2004) (citing to and quoting from Townsend v. Little Co. of Mary Hosp. & Health Care, Inc., No. 00 L 3555 (Ill., Cook County Cir. Ct. Dec. 3, 2002)).
I believe that the foregoing is a more clear and complete recitation of the law in Indiana regarding loss of chance damages, and I encourage parties and trial courts to consider using this instruction or a version thereof should the issue arise.