 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Topp v. Leffers10/21/2005
sted the accident in question in this case, the causal connection between the accident and the resulting injury, if any, complained of by [Topp] is a complicated medical issue. An understanding and analysis of this causal connection is not within the understanding of a lay jury and requires the testimony of an expert witness.
2. No physician in this case testified to a reasonable medical certainty or probability regarding the causal connection between the accident in question in this cause and [Topp's] post-accident complaints of injury or pain.
*
5. [Topp's] testimony, when added to the physicians' testimony in this case does not rise to the level of reasonable medical certainty or probability.
6. [Topp] has failed to provide evidence to support the third essential element of a case of negligence, that of proximate causation.
Brief of the Appellant Yvonne Topp at 8. The trial court ultimately denied Topp's motion to correct errors and this appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Topp argues that the trial court erred in granting Leffers' motion for a directed verdict. We disagree.
I. Standard of Review
When considering a challenge to a trial court's ruling on a motion for a directed verdict, also known as a motion for judgment on the evidence, we use the same standard as the trial court, and will only consider the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the non-moving party. Schloot v. Guinevere Real Estate Corp., 697 N.E.2d 1273, 1275 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). "In a jury trial, a court should withdraw the issues from the jury and enter judgment on the evidence in favor of the defendants when, at the close of the plaintiff's evidence, there is a total absence of evidence or reasonable inferences on at least one essential element of the plaintiffs' case." Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. A motion for a directed verdict should only be granted where there is no substantial evidence supporting an essential element of the claim. Id.
II. Causation
In her complaint, Topp alleged that the pain in her neck, mid-back, and lower back was caused by Leffers' negligence. "The tort of negligence consists of three elements: (1) a duty to the plaintiff by the defendant; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by that breach." Kincade v. MAC Corp., 773 N.E.2d 909, 911 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
Here, the trial court found that Leffers' motion for a directed verdict should be granted because Topp did not present sufficient evidence to prove the causation element of her negligence claim. "An essential element in a cause of action for negligence is the requirement of a reasonable connection between a defendant's conduct and the damages which a plaintiff has suffered." Daub, 629 N.E.2d at 877. "The element of causation requires that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct." City of East Chicago v. Litera, 692 N.E.2d 898, 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied. "The 'but for' analysis presupposes that, absent the tortious conduct, a plaintiff would have been spared suffering the claimed harm." Daub, 629 N.E.2d at 877.
The trial court concluded that Topp did not carry her burden with regard to the element of causation because no expert witness testified to a reasonable medical certainty that the November 2000 accident caused Topp's post-accident injuries. In drawing this conclusion, the trial court relied upon Daub. In that case, Daub slipped on snow and ice that had accumulated on her in-laws' patio. At the time, Daub did not feel any pain,
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|