FILED Jun 14 2024, 9:29 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Hetty Incorporated, Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
Alex D. Weems, Appellee-Defendant
June 14, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-SC-148 Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable David W. Urbanski, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 45D12-2309-SC-4731
Opinion by Judge Crone Judges Bradford and Tavitas concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Crone, Judge.
Case Summary [1] Hetty Incorporated (Hetty) appeals the small claims court’s judgment in favor
of Alex Weems. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On the afternoon of March 6, 2023, Weems was driving his 2022 Tesla near an
elementary school in Hammond when his car was “hit on [the] left-hand side
by a fifteen-passenger cargo van.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 5. Weems “lost control” of his
car, which crossed “over the middle line,” traveled onto a sidewalk, struck a
fence and building, and came to rest partially wedged “under a semi-truck[.]”
Id. at 8, 9, 12. Weems was in his car “for some time before” he exited it “via the
window.” Id. at 8. By then, the van and its occupants had left the scene. Id. at
23-24. However, a camera on Weems’s car had captured an image of the van’s
license plate, which Weems shared with his insurance company and with a
police officer who investigated the accident. Id. at 24. Thereafter, the van’s
vehicle identification number, the names of its owners (Michael and Natalie
Fowler), the fact that it was a company vehicle, and the owners’ insurance
policy were discovered. Id. at 7, 8, 24, 25.
[3] In September 2023, Hetty, the owner of the fence and building, filed a notice of
claim seeking $7,724.95 from Weems. At an October small claims hearing,
Hetty introduced a photograph showing Weems’s car’s post-collision resting
place, a photo of the damaged fence and building, and a $7,724.95 estimate to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 2 of 9 fix the fence and building. Weems introduced a video clip that the camera on
his car had taken at the time of the collision and which he had saved to his cell
phone. Hetty’s counsel moved to admit the video clip into evidence, and the
trial court noted that the video clip would be “Defendant’s A.” Id. at 15. The
trial court, Hetty’s counsel, and Weems viewed the video clip more than once.
When asked if his insurance company was “pursuing any legal matter against
the Fowlers,” Weems replied that, to his knowledge, his “insurance was not.
They settled that with their insurance claim.” Id. at 25. Weems received an
“insurance check to take care of [his] vehicle[.]” Id.
[4] The trial court asked Hetty’s counsel, “[W]hat exactly did Mr. Weems do
wrong in this matter?” Id. at 26. Hetty’s counsel responded that “speed is what
caused this accident[,]” specifically, speed in excess of a twenty “miles per hour
school zone.” Id. at 26-27. Hetty’s counsel admitted that he had “no direct
knowledge” of the speed of Weems’s car, acknowledged the “contact between
the” van and Weems’s car, and asserted that Weems had named “no
nonparty[.]” Id. at 27. Toward the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
clarified Hetty’s counsel’s argument: traveling over twenty miles an hour in a
school zone constituted “the negligent operation” of Weems’s car, which led to
the damaged fence and building. Id. at 29-30. The trial court entered a defense
verdict on October 27, 2023.
[5] In November 2023, Hetty filed a motion for copy of trial transcript and exhibits.
The trial court entered an order for transcript and exhibits and an order that
Weems supply two copies of the video clip that had been admitted as a trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 3 of 9 exhibit. Hetty filed a motion to correct error. Weems filed no response. In a
December 2023 order, the trial court issued a four-page order denying Hetty’s
motion to correct error. Hetty appeals. 1
Discussion and Decision [6] Hetty challenges the small claims court’s judgment in favor of Weems. Weems
did not file an appellee’s brief. In such a case, we need not develop an argument
for him “but instead will reverse the trial court’s judgment if [Hetty’s] brief
presents a case of prima facie error.” In re Adoption of E.B., 163 N.E.3d 931, 935
(Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Prima facie error
means “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Jenkins v. Jenkins,
17 N.E.3d 350, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Still, we are obligated to correctly
apply the law to the facts in the record to determine whether reversal is
required.” Id.
[7] Small claims proceedings are informal and are not “bound by the statutory
provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleadings or evidence except
provisions relating to privileged communications and offers of compromise.”
Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A). Judgments in small claims actions are “subject to
review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims
Rule 11(A). “We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous
standard[.]” Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. 2011).
1 The video clip was not included in the record before us on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 4 of 9 “The small claims court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of
witnesses, and on appeal we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of the witnesses.” Heartland Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976
N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “This deferential standard of review is
particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are designed to
speedily dispense justice by applying substantive law between the parties in an
informal setting.” Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (citation omitted). Although the method of proof may be informal, the
party bearing the burden of proof must demonstrate that he is entitled to the
recovery sought. Spainhower v. Smart & Kessler, LLC, 176 N.E.3d 258, 263 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied (2022). We review questions of law de novo.
Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006).
[8] Citing Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, Hetty asserts that the trial court
committed reversible error by allowing Weems to raise a nonparty defense
without requiring him to “specifically identify and name” the nonparty.
Appellant’s Br. at 6. Hetty contends that Weems lost control of his car and hit
the fence and building, which are stationary objects to which no fault may be
attributed. As such, Hetty maintains that fault for the collision rests solely with
Weems.
[9] Pursuant to Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, in a suit for recovery of harm to
property, “a defendant may assert as a defense that the damages of the claimant
were caused in full or in part by a nonparty.” Ind.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED Jun 14 2024, 9:29 am
CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court
IN THE
Court of Appeals of Indiana Hetty Incorporated, Appellant-Plaintiff
v.
Alex D. Weems, Appellee-Defendant
June 14, 2024 Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-SC-148 Appeal from the Lake Superior Court The Honorable David W. Urbanski, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 45D12-2309-SC-4731
Opinion by Judge Crone Judges Bradford and Tavitas concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 1 of 9 Crone, Judge.
Case Summary [1] Hetty Incorporated (Hetty) appeals the small claims court’s judgment in favor
of Alex Weems. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History [2] On the afternoon of March 6, 2023, Weems was driving his 2022 Tesla near an
elementary school in Hammond when his car was “hit on [the] left-hand side
by a fifteen-passenger cargo van.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 5. Weems “lost control” of his
car, which crossed “over the middle line,” traveled onto a sidewalk, struck a
fence and building, and came to rest partially wedged “under a semi-truck[.]”
Id. at 8, 9, 12. Weems was in his car “for some time before” he exited it “via the
window.” Id. at 8. By then, the van and its occupants had left the scene. Id. at
23-24. However, a camera on Weems’s car had captured an image of the van’s
license plate, which Weems shared with his insurance company and with a
police officer who investigated the accident. Id. at 24. Thereafter, the van’s
vehicle identification number, the names of its owners (Michael and Natalie
Fowler), the fact that it was a company vehicle, and the owners’ insurance
policy were discovered. Id. at 7, 8, 24, 25.
[3] In September 2023, Hetty, the owner of the fence and building, filed a notice of
claim seeking $7,724.95 from Weems. At an October small claims hearing,
Hetty introduced a photograph showing Weems’s car’s post-collision resting
place, a photo of the damaged fence and building, and a $7,724.95 estimate to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 2 of 9 fix the fence and building. Weems introduced a video clip that the camera on
his car had taken at the time of the collision and which he had saved to his cell
phone. Hetty’s counsel moved to admit the video clip into evidence, and the
trial court noted that the video clip would be “Defendant’s A.” Id. at 15. The
trial court, Hetty’s counsel, and Weems viewed the video clip more than once.
When asked if his insurance company was “pursuing any legal matter against
the Fowlers,” Weems replied that, to his knowledge, his “insurance was not.
They settled that with their insurance claim.” Id. at 25. Weems received an
“insurance check to take care of [his] vehicle[.]” Id.
[4] The trial court asked Hetty’s counsel, “[W]hat exactly did Mr. Weems do
wrong in this matter?” Id. at 26. Hetty’s counsel responded that “speed is what
caused this accident[,]” specifically, speed in excess of a twenty “miles per hour
school zone.” Id. at 26-27. Hetty’s counsel admitted that he had “no direct
knowledge” of the speed of Weems’s car, acknowledged the “contact between
the” van and Weems’s car, and asserted that Weems had named “no
nonparty[.]” Id. at 27. Toward the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court
clarified Hetty’s counsel’s argument: traveling over twenty miles an hour in a
school zone constituted “the negligent operation” of Weems’s car, which led to
the damaged fence and building. Id. at 29-30. The trial court entered a defense
verdict on October 27, 2023.
[5] In November 2023, Hetty filed a motion for copy of trial transcript and exhibits.
The trial court entered an order for transcript and exhibits and an order that
Weems supply two copies of the video clip that had been admitted as a trial
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 3 of 9 exhibit. Hetty filed a motion to correct error. Weems filed no response. In a
December 2023 order, the trial court issued a four-page order denying Hetty’s
motion to correct error. Hetty appeals. 1
Discussion and Decision [6] Hetty challenges the small claims court’s judgment in favor of Weems. Weems
did not file an appellee’s brief. In such a case, we need not develop an argument
for him “but instead will reverse the trial court’s judgment if [Hetty’s] brief
presents a case of prima facie error.” In re Adoption of E.B., 163 N.E.3d 931, 935
(Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Prima facie error
means “at first sight, on first appearance, or on the face of it.” Jenkins v. Jenkins,
17 N.E.3d 350, 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “Still, we are obligated to correctly
apply the law to the facts in the record to determine whether reversal is
required.” Id.
[7] Small claims proceedings are informal and are not “bound by the statutory
provisions or rules of practice, procedure, pleadings or evidence except
provisions relating to privileged communications and offers of compromise.”
Ind. Small Claims Rule 8(A). Judgments in small claims actions are “subject to
review as prescribed by relevant Indiana rules and statutes.” Ind. Small Claims
Rule 11(A). “We review facts from a bench trial under the clearly erroneous
standard[.]” Branham v. Varble, 952 N.E.2d 744, 746 (Ind. 2011).
1 The video clip was not included in the record before us on appeal.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 4 of 9 “The small claims court is the sole judge of the evidence and the credibility of
witnesses, and on appeal we neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the
credibility of the witnesses.” Heartland Crossing Found., Inc. v. Dotlich, 976
N.E.2d 760, 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). “This deferential standard of review is
particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are designed to
speedily dispense justice by applying substantive law between the parties in an
informal setting.” Berryhill v. Parkview Hosp., 962 N.E.2d 685, 689 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (citation omitted). Although the method of proof may be informal, the
party bearing the burden of proof must demonstrate that he is entitled to the
recovery sought. Spainhower v. Smart & Kessler, LLC, 176 N.E.3d 258, 263 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied (2022). We review questions of law de novo.
Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065, 1068 (Ind. 2006).
[8] Citing Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, Hetty asserts that the trial court
committed reversible error by allowing Weems to raise a nonparty defense
without requiring him to “specifically identify and name” the nonparty.
Appellant’s Br. at 6. Hetty contends that Weems lost control of his car and hit
the fence and building, which are stationary objects to which no fault may be
attributed. As such, Hetty maintains that fault for the collision rests solely with
Weems.
[9] Pursuant to Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, in a suit for recovery of harm to
property, “a defendant may assert as a defense that the damages of the claimant
were caused in full or in part by a nonparty.” Ind. Code §§ 34-51-2-1, -14.
Generally, a defendant must “affirmatively plead” a nonparty defense. Ind.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 5 of 9 Code § 34-51-2-15; see also Ind. Code § 34-51-2-16 (outlining when nonparty
defense must be pleaded). However, Indiana Small Claims Rule 4(A), entitled,
“Preservation of Defenses,” provides that “[a]ll defenses shall be deemed at
issue without responsive pleadings, but this provision shall not alter the burden
of proof.” (Emphasis added). The claimant retains the “burden of proving that
fault on the part of the defendant or defendants caused, in whole or in part, the
damages of the claimant.” Ind. Code § 34-51-2-15. It is well settled that the
allocation of fault is entrusted to the factfinder’s sound judgment. N. Ind. Pub.
Serv. Co. v. Josh’s Lawn & Snow, LLC, 130 N.E.3d 1191, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App.
2019).
[10] Because the present case was brought as a small claims matter, Weems was not
required to formally plead a nonparty defense. See Wells v. Trinity Universal Ins.
Co., 655 N.E.2d 514, 515 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (concluding that defendants in
small claims action “were not required to plead a non-party defense. See S.C.R.
4(A).”). Thus, it was sufficient for Weems to contend at the hearing that his car
lost control because it was hit by a van. Hetty is correct that Weems did not
know who was driving the van at the time of the collision. However, Weems
did provide the names of the van’s owners and explained that his car’s camera
had captured an image of the van’s license plate, which he gave to police and to
his insurance company. Although the testimony is sparse, it appears that
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 6 of 9 between Weems’s insurance and the Fowlers’ insurance, Weems received an
insurance payout check for his car. 2
[11] The trial court heard Weems’s nonparty defense and ultimately determined that
Hetty did not meet its burden of proof. In its order denying Hetty’s motion to
correct error and confirming that Hetty would recover nothing, the trial court
took great pains to explain its reasoning as follows:
12. Damages directly attributable to the wrong done are recoverable.
13. The damages claimed must be reasonably ascertainable and not based upon mere speculation or conjecture.
14. The law provides that a party seeking judgement must prove both liability and damages before judgement may be entered in their favor.
15. The Court finds the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant negligently operated his vehicle which resulted in damage to the Plaintiff’s fence.
16. The Court finds the Plaintiff’s allegation of negligence was predicated upon the speed [in excess of the speed limit] of the Defendant’s vehicle.
2 It is unclear whether Hetty communicated with the police, with Weems’s insurance company, or with the Fowlers’ insurance company.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 7 of 9 ….
18. The Court finds the Plaintiff’s allegation was that the applicable speed limit was relative to the area [reduced speed limit pursuant to being a school zone] in which the Defendant’s alleged negligence occurred.
….
24. The Court finds speed limits applicable to school zones are indicated by signs/markings utilizing flashing yellow lights that announce the reduced, school zone speed limit is applicable when flashing [or when children are present].
26. The Court finds the Plaintiff failed to submit evidence of any signs/markings utilizing flashing yellow lights that announced the reduced, school zone speed limit is applicable when flashing [or when children are present] to establish the application of the reduced school zone speed limit at the time of the Defendant’s alleged negligence.
31. The Court finds the Plaintiff failed to establish that the Defendant’s alleged negligence occurred within [a] geographical area that had reduced speed limit because of the application of the reduced school zone speed limit.
32. The Court finds the Plaintiff submitted no evidence of the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 8 of 9 33. The Court finds the Plaintiff’s contention that the Defendant was engaged in a speed contest with another vehicle asks the Court to engage in conjecture, speculation and assumption in producing a verdict in his favor.
Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 18-19.
[12] In sum, the trial court found that Hetty did not prove the speed limit that was
applicable at the time that Weems was traveling on the particular road, nor did
Hetty prove the speed at which Weems was driving, let alone that he was
exceeding the applicable speed limit. As such, the trial court determined that
Hetty did not prove that Weems was at fault in whole or in part for the damage
to the fence and building. Given the circumstances presented, and the
deferential standard we apply to the factfinder’s judgment when the allocation
of fault is at issue, we cannot say that Hetty established prima facie error.
Accordingly, we affirm.
[13] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Douglas K. Walker The Gladish Law Group Highland, Indiana
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-SC-148 | June 14, 2024 Page 9 of 9