Do You, Plaintiff, Take The Defendant To Be Your Lawfully Wedded Husband?

In June, 2009 Beckman, Kelly & Smith was involved in defending the driver of a moving van in a non-vehicular incident. The driver and his fiancée stopped at a casino in northwestern Indiana to have a few drinks and play the slots. During that time, the driver admitted to having four shots of tequila and two light beers and his fiancée admitted to having more than that. Subsequently, they got in an argument and left the casino. Upon powering up the rig and heading to the interstate highway, the fiancée in the passenger seat either jumped or fell from the moving vehicle. She incurred closed head trauma, various fractures of the face and jaw and lost her right leg below the knee. The police investigated the incident, but did not give the driver any type of Breathalyzer or blood alcohol test and the passenger had a .149 blood alcohol content. After the occurrence, both driver and passenger explained to the medical professionals and the investigating law enforcement that she was despondent, suicidal and jumped from the vehicle. However, approximately five weeks later they recanted their recollections and decided that she fell from the vehicle due to a faulty seatbelt and faulty door latching mechanism. To further complicate the matter, approximately three months later they were married. Unfortunately, the marriage would not lead to the "and they lived happily ever after" ending because the wife would soon file a negligence suit against her husband and the motor carrier.

The suit was initially filed in Illinois then subsequently moved to Indiana. Mediation was conducted and there was a $5 Million demand by the plaintiff/wife. Due to the outrageous monetary demand, it did not settle and there was a bifurcated trial on liability only as the medical providers were in South Carolina and Illinois. Normally, in a case such as this, the wife could have relied on an accident report to support her claims. However, no such report existed because the police determined there was no "accident" to report. So to prove her rendition of the incident, she presented the expert testimony of Mr. Don Asa of Phoenix, Arizona and she took the witness stand and testified against her husband and the motor carrier. In their testimony, both the husband and wife admitted that they had imbibed heavily at the casino before the incident, but ultimately it was not enough to convince a jury that it was the husband's and not the wife's actions that were the proximate cause of her injuries. The case itself had so many twists, turns and legal analysis that it would be perfect for a law school hypothetical. It posed many interesting questions of law in the relationship between a lumper, husband/wife and independent contractor. After four (4) hours of deliberation, a six-person jury (4 women) found in favor of the defendants, the driver and motor carrier. The truth prevailed and justice was served when the jury assigned 100% liability to the plaintiff-wife.