Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided the case of Lewis v. Smith (pdf), an unpublished decision that analyzes the effect of Indiana’s comparative fault statute in the situation where the finder of fact (in this case, a trial court judge) finds both parties to be equally at fault.
The case involved a collision in a parking lot. Vehicle A sustained $3,885 in damages while Vehicle B sustained $2,664. Each sued the other for damages. The trial court apparently didn’t really believe the testimony of either side entirely and basically punted, finding that both sides were equally at fault and awarding nothing to either party.
While one can sympathize with the trial court’s inclinations on this one, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision because the Comparative Fault Act simply doesn’t allow a zero award in such a situation. A judgment against a claimant is appropriate only where the claimant’s fault exceeds 50%. With only two parties involved, both parties can’t have fault in excess of 50%. If both are equally to blame, then the Comparative Fault Act requires verdicts against both for 50% of the other party’s damages.
As I read the statute, Car A should have been awarded $1,942.50 and Car B should have been awarded $1,332. I think it’s probably appropriate to set off one against the other and enter a verdict in favor of the owner of Car A in the amount of $610.50.
It’s a tough call. I think the interpretation of the Court of Appeals is correct under the current terms of the Comparative Fault Act. On the other hand, it seems to me that there ought to be some step short of allocation of fault where a court (or jury, for that matter) can simply determine that neither side has introduced sufficient evidence to convince the finder of fact that the other side was negligent, and then leave the parties on their own. My understanding of the current formulation of the Act is that as long as there is enough evidence to get it to a fact finder, then the fact finder must allocate fault, adding up to 100 percent. I think it’s a problem in cases like this.
Take the example of a red light case with no witnesses. Party A claims that he had the green light and Party B had the red light. Party B claims the opposite. The physical evidence sheds no light on the situation. The parties are equally credible. In a case like that, a 50/50 split of fault really isn’t an honest assessment of the case. There is no evidence that suggests equal fault. The only evidence is the testimony of the parties, and if either is correct, then the vast majority of fault should be on the other party.