October 5, 2010
Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals provided the bar with a lesson in the value of filing a cross-appeal when there is more than one way to support a trial court's decision in
Ramos v. James, Case No. 34A05-1005-CT-301, a memorandum decision, uncitable as authority under
App. R. 65(D). In this case, the Court reversed a trial court's grant of summary judgment to a defendant on one ground, but nevertheless granted summary judgment to that defendant on other grounds, based on the defendant's cross-appeal.
less..
The plaintiff (Ramos) and the defendant (Hoover) attended a wedding together and, after the wedding, attended the wedding reception. Once they arrived at the wedding reception, Ramos started drinking. At some point in the evening, another man (James) arrived at the reception. Ramos saw James become intoxicated, smoke marijuana, and take seizure medication pills. Ramos also noticed that James had a gun in the waistband of his pants and saw him flashing the gun around by pulling up his shirt and showing the gun handle to everyone at the reception. This concerned Ramos because "people do stupid things when they’re intoxicated."
James asked Hoover for a ride home and Ramos was aware that James would be riding in the car with them. On the way home, James sat in the back seat behind Ramos. Ramos heard another passenger say to James "What are you doing?" and then heard the gun cock. After that noise, James' gun discharged and the bullet grazed the side of Ramos' head.
Ramos brought an action against James and was granted a default judgment against James. He then amended his complaint to name Hoover, claiming that he negligently allowed James to ride in the car. Hoover filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that he had no duty to Ramos and that Ramos incurred the risk of his injuries. The trial court denied Hoover's motion on the issue of duty, but granted the motion because Ramos incurred the risk of his injuries. Ramos appealed.
On appeal, the Court concluded that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment to Hoover on the issue of whether Ramos incurred the risk.
[O]ur supreme court held that the defense of incurred risk as a complete defense "no longer exists; it is subsumed by the concept of fault in our comparative fault scheme." ... Despite our supreme court's directive, here, the trial court treated incurred risk as a complete defense, stating, "It is the [c]ourt's opinion that Ramos incurred the risk to the degree that, as a matter of law, he may not recover from Hoover in negligence." ... The interpretation of the evidence and assessments of weight and credibility of the witnesses should be left to the sound judgment of the trier of fact at a trial on the merits, not determined at the summary judgment stage.
Nevertheless, the Court held that summary judgment should be granted to Hoover because he did not owe a duty to Ramos.
Here, we find that there was no special relationship between Hoover and Ramos giving Ramos a right of protection or between Hoover and James giving Hoover a right of control. In the absence of such a relationship, there is no duty owed by Hoover to Ramos, and summary judgment should have been entered on this basis.
The lesson here? If the court enters a decision that is a mix of both favorable and unfavorable decisions and some other party appeals the judgment, then you should file a cross-appeal on behalf of your client. You may be able to save the time and expense of further litigation by giving the appellate court an alternative basis for granting you the same relief that you were already granted.
Lessons:
- File a cross-appeal on any issue which is adverse to you; it may provide the appellate court with an alternative basis for granting you the relief you seek.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/73
