Preview:

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DEBORAH A. KAPITAN DAVID A. MACK Crown Point, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: STEVEN L. LANGER TARA M. WOZNIAK Valparaiso, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
MARY S. SUMERACKI, Appellant-Defendant, vs. JILL HITZ and JAMES HITZ, Appellee-Plaintiffs. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. 64A03-0706-CV-265

APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT The Honorable William E. Alexa, Judge Cause No. 64D02-0404-CT-3629

DECEMBER 17, 2007 MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION HOFFMAN, Senior Judge

Defendant-Appellant Mary S. Sumeracki ("Sumeracki") appeals the trial court's entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of Plaintiffs-Appellees Jill Hitz ("Hitz") and James Hitz. We reverse. Sumeracki raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court abused its discretion when it entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of Hitz' fault. On the morning of June 19, 2003, Sumeracki loaded two of her dogs into her Yukon SUV and left her home in Illinois to attend a dog show taking place at the Porter County Expo Center ("Expo Center"). The Expo Center is located just east of State Road 49 on Division Road in Valparaiso, Indiana. Sumeracki was scheduled to show her dogs in the show that day. She had never been to Valparaiso before. Sumeracki arrived in Valparaiso around 8 a.m. and began traveling south on State Road 49. She noted that the southbound traffic on State Road 49 was busy, but could not recall what the northbound traffic was like.1 At that same time, Hitz was traveling north on State Road 49 in her Ford Escort. Hitz was going to work at Porter Hospital where she was a registered nurse. She traveled this same route to work each day. Hitz testified that between 7:30 and 8 a.m., traffic on State Road 49 typically was busy. On this particular day, though, Hitz stated that the traffic on State Road 49 was especially busy because of the dog show at the Expo Center. Hitz indicated that the weather that day was clear and sunny.

At her deposition, Sumeracki testified that both the northbound and southbound traffic on State Road 49 was busy.

1

2

The speed limit on State Road 49 was fifty-five miles per hour. North of the intersection of State Road 49 and Division Road, State Road 49 had four lanes of traffic. South of Division Road, State Road 49 was primarily a two-lane highway. However, approximately nine hundred and twenty-five feet before the intersection of State Road 49 and Division Road, the northbound lane became two lanes. Northbound traffic could use either of these two lanes to pass through the intersection. Neither lane was specifically designated as a turning lane. Traffic at the intersection of Division Road and State Road 49 was controlled by a stoplight. The stoplight for north and southbound traffic did not have a left turn arrow. There were no signs at the intersection of State Road 49 and Division Road advising motorists to reduce their speed as they approached the intersection. As Hitz neared the intersection of State Road 49 and Division Road, she was traveling in the right northbound lane. The light at the intersection was green. There was a steady stream of traffic around Hitz with cars both in front of and behind her. A number of vehicles were present at the intersection. Hitz noticed that there was a vehicle in the left northbound lane of State Road 49 stopped at the stoplight waiting to turn west onto Division Road. A second car was on Division Road waiting to turn north on State Road 49. A third car was on Division Road waiting to cross State Road 49 to continue east on Division Road. Hitz also saw Sumeracki's Yukon in the left southbound lane stopped at the stoplight. Sumeracki was waiting to turn left so that she could travel east on Division Road. As Hitz entered the intersection, she reduced her speed to between forty-five and fifty miles per hour. 3

While Sumeracki was waiting at the stoplight, she looked up and saw that the light was still green. She then looked at the northbound lanes to see if she was free to turn left. Sumeracki stated that she did not see anything, so she proceeded to cross the northbound lanes. At that point, Sumeracki's and Hitz' vehicles collided. Sumeracki stated that the first time she saw Hitz' car was after the accident. Thereafter, Hitz and her husband filed suit against Sumeracki seeking to recover damages for the personal injuries Hitz sustained as a result of the accident. The jury trial began on May 7, 2007. At the close of the evidence and prior to closing arguments, Hitz, pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 50(A), made a motion for a directed verdict arguing that there was no evidence that she bore any fault for the accident. The trial court denied Hitz' motion. The trial court then instructed the jury that Ind. Code

Download Mary S. Sumeracki v. Jill and James Hitz.pdf

Indiana Law