The Court's Visit

Law School > Feature Archive > Indiana Court of Appeals Oral Argument October 2007

Indiana Court of Appeals Oral Argument October 2007

Shafer & Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corp. v. Justin Stichnoth and Corraine Stichnoth

Monday, October 29, 2007
noon–1 p.m.
Moot Court Room

This event is free and open to the public. Information about the case was provided by the Court.

About the Case

Facts and Procedural History

On July 17, 2004, Justin Stichnoth, who was 26 years old at the time, was visiting his parents at their house located on Lake Shafer. During a conversation that day, Justin's father, Kerry Stichnoth, told Justin about a dredge pipe that Shafer & Freeman Lakes Environmental Conservation Corporation ("Shafer") had installed in the channel near their dock. Kerry explained that recently he had gotten his boat "hung up" on the dredge pipe. Shortly thereafter, Justin took a running dive off of his parents' dock into the channel.

Justin had frequently made shallow-water dives off of his parents' dock over the years. But that day, Justin struck his head on the dredge pipe, which was located on the channel floor approximately seventeen feet from the dock. As a result, Justin sustained fractures to three of his cervical vertebrae and a spinal cord contusion. Justin was initially rendered a paraplegic, but after months of rehabilitation, he was able to breathe on his own, walk, and lift his arms to his face.

Case Synopsis

On Sept. 22, 2004, the Stichnoths filed a complaint against Shafer alleging that Shafer's negligence caused Justin's personal injuries. In particular, the Stichnoths alleged that Shafer was negligent in failing to warn that there was a pipe beneath the water's surface, in failing to mark the pipe so that it would be visible to users of the lake, and in failing to use reasonable care in dredging the lake. In its answer, Shafer denied the allegations of negligence and asserted that Justin's parents were liable for his injuries. Shafer named Justin's parents and Commonwealth Engineers, an entity that provided engineering expertise in the installation of the dredge pipe, as nonparties to this action.

On Aug. 15, 2006, Shafer filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of whether Justin was an invitee or licensee of Shafer. (The answer to that question determines the level of care Shafer owed to Justin.) In addition, Shafer moved to bifurcate the trial on the issues of liability and damages. The trial court denied those motions following a hearing.

On Oct. 6, 2006, Shafer filed a Motion to Exclude in Whole or in Part Plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Edward Berla. The Stichnoths hired Dr. Berla to testify regarding Justin's impaired earning capacity as a result of his injuries. The trial court denied Shafer's motion to exclude Dr. Berla's testimony.

On Oct. 16, 2006, the jury trial commenced. On the final day of trial, when the parties were ready to discuss final instructions, Shafer moved to withdraw Kerry Stichnoth and Commonwealth Engineers as nonparties. The Stichnoths objected, and the trial court denied the motion following argument. Accordingly, both nonparties were named on the verdict forms. After deliberations, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Stichnoths in the amount of $3,398,000. And the jury assessed fault as follows: Justin 50 percent; Shafer 30 percent; and Kerry Stichnoth 20 percent. The trial court entered judgment against Shafer in the amount of $1,019,400. This appeal ensued.

Parties' Arguments

On the first issue, Shafer contends that it permitted Justin to use the lake but did not invite him to do so. As such, Shafer asserts that it does not owe Justin the duty of care owed an invitee, and the trial court should have granted its summary judgment motion. On the second issue, Shafer maintains that the trial court should have separated the issues of liability and damages for trial. Shafer contends that the jury's decision on liability was likely affected by the evidence of the severity of Justin's injuries. On the third issue, Shafer argues that Dr. Berla used an unscientific methodology in arriving at his opinion on Justin's earning capacity. Finally, Shafer contends that the trial court's denial of its motion to withdraw the nonparty defense deprived given the jury's fault allocation, clearly affected the verdict."

The Stichnoths contend that Justin was a public invitee of Shafer at the time of the accident and that the trial court did not err when it denied Shafer's summary judgment motion. The Stichnoths also contend that Shafer has not demonstrated any prejudice from the trial court's denial of its motion to bifurcate the issues of liability and damages for trial. The Stichnoths maintain that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it permitted Dr. Berla's expert testimony regarding Justin's impaired earning capacity. And, finally, the Stichnoths assert that Shafer has not demonstrated any prejudice from the trial court's denial of its motion to withdraw its nonparty defense.

Back to Top

Judges

Back to Top

Attorneys

Back to Top