Court Opinion

ID: 9743345
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:31:27.958952+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:40.684692
License: Public Domain

MILLER, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
I concur. Ind.Code 84-4-88-9 provides the mandatory procedures for internally inconsistent verdicts.
The verdiet in this case is inconsistent under IC 84-4-88-9. The ultimate amount awarded ($10,290.00) is inconsistent with the total damages ($21,000.00) and the percentage of fault allocated to Mr. Sigman (51%).
Unlike Judge Ratliff, I do not think that we are requiring a new trial as a result of an obvious mathematical error. The inconsistency is not necessarily a mathematical error. At least two possibilities exist:
(1) The jury meant to find Plaintiff Nelson 51% at fault, but reversed its percentages and should not have rendered a money judgment at all (confusion as to the applicable law); or
(2) The jury erred in awarding Plaintiff Nelson 49% ($10,290.00) rather than 51% (10,710.00) of the damages (mathematical error).
Under IC 84-4-88-9, the court is not to correct the error by assuming what the jury intended; rather, the jury is to correct the inconsistencies. In the case at bar, the jury has been excused, making that impossible. Under these cireumstances, a new trial would be the appropriate remedy.