Jessica Curd v. Regina Harrington (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Sep 30 2019, 11:17 am
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as
precedent or cited before any court except for the CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Taffanee L. Keys Jennifer Lee, Esq.
The Keys Law Office Lee, Cossell & Crowley, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jessica Curd, September 30, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-SC-2598
v. Appeal from the Marion Small
Claims Court, Wayne Township
Regina Harrington, The Hon. Gerald B. Coleman,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No.
49K08-1806-SC-3795
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] In June of 2016, Jessica Curd attacked Regina Harrington at a party, scratching
her face. As a result of the scratches, Harrington lost income and incurred
medical expenses. Harrington brought a small claims battery action against
Jessica, and the small claims court ultimately entered judgment in favor of
Harrington for $6500.00. Jessica contends that neither the judgment nor the
award of damages is supported by sufficient evidence. Because we disagree, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On June 12, 2016, Harrington was romantically involved with Armon Curd,
the ex-husband of Jessica. That day, Harrington was invited to attend the
Indianapolis graduation party of Armon and Jessica’s daughter, Lauren. As
Harrington sat on a couch speaking with Simone Curd, another of Armon and
Jessica’s daughters, she felt an “aggressive brush against [her] leg” from Jessica.
Tr. Vol. II p. 64. Armon and Simone spoke with Jessica about her behavior,
and “things seemed to dissipate.” Tr. Vol. II p. 65. Armon suggested to
Harrington that she have some food, and she walked down a hallway to a buffet
in another room. Jessica followed and, as she bent down to get a bottle of
water for her boyfriend, Harrington bumped into her. Harrington and Jessica
then began to argue, and Jessica struck Harrington in the face, leaving several
scratches.
[3] An emergency medical technician treated Harrington at the scene, she sought
further medical care the next day, and she was later treated by a dermatologist
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 2 of 7
and a scar revisionist, the latter of which she has seen over ten times. As a
result of Jessica’s scratches, Harrington has incurred medical expenses of well
over three thousand dollars, missed some work, and will have permanent
scarring.
[4] On June 4, 2018, Harrington brought a small claims battery action against
Jessica, seeking $5000.00 in damages, a request later increased to $8000.00.
The small claims court held a bench trial on August 28, 2019. Harrington
testified that her injuries caused her to miss work, which, in turn, caused her
yearly work bonus to drop from its average of $30,000.00 to approximately
$15,000.00. Harrington indicated that her
[t]otal losses in a dollar figure would definitely be more than
thirty thousand. They far exceed the eight given the investment
of time. I don’t even live in this state I’ve had to travel back and
forth. My attorney fees, my time away from work, potential
where I could have lost growth. [T]he mental anguish, I mean
just in dealing with this whole deal.
Tr. Vol. II p. 80.
[5] On August 30, 2019, the small claims court entered a $6500.00 judgment in
favor of Harrington. The small claims court made the following findings
relevant to the question of damages:
14. Because [Harrington] suffered several lacerations on her
face, paramedics were called and [Harrington] received
medical treatment.
15. [Harrington] had to subsequently cancel several work
appointments because of her injuries.
16. [Harrington] had several visits with physicians about the
injuries to her face.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 3 of 7
17. [Harrington]’s physicians indicate that there will be some
permanent marks on her face in the form of scar tissue or
loss of color.
18. [Harrington] incurred approximately $3000.00 in medical
bills.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 10.
Discussion and Decision
[6] We review a small claims court’s judgment for clear error. Bokori v. Martinoski,
70 N.E.3d 441, 443 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). A deferential standard of review is
particularly important in small claims actions, where trials are informal with the
sole objective of dispending speedy justice according to the rules of substantive
law. Lae v. Householder, 789 N.E.2d 481, 483 (Ind. 2003). In conducting
appellate review of a small claims court’s findings and conclusions after a bench
trial, we consider only the evidence favorable to the judgment and all
reasonable inferences flowing therefrom. Estate of Henry v. Woods, 77 N.E.3d
1200, 1204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). We neither reweigh the evidence nor assess
witness credibility. Id.I. Liability
A. Self-Defense
[7] In Indiana, a person is liable for the tort of battery if she acts intending to cause
harmful or offensive contact to another person or an imminent apprehension of
such contact and harmful contact occurs. Mullins v. Parkview Hosp., Inc., 865
N.E.2d 608, 610 (Ind. 2007). “A touching, however slight, may constitute an
assault and battery.” Knight v. Ind. Ins. Co., 871 N.E.2d 357, 362 (Ind. Ct. App.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 4 of 7
2007). Jessica does not deny that she scratched Harrington but contends,
essentially, that the small claims court erred in not finding that she acted in self-
defense. Jessica points to her testimony that (1) Harrington intentionally
bumped into her as she was bent over, causing her to lose balance, (2) she put
her arm up because it appeared that Harrington was about to strike her, and (3)
she struck Harrington after first being struck. The small claims court, however,
was under no obligation to credit Jessica’s testimony that she acted in self-
defense and did not. Jessica’s argument is nothing more than an invitation to
reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See Estate of Henry, 77 N.E.3d at
1204.
B. Incurred Risk
[8] Jessica also argues that her liability should be mitigated because Harrington
incurred the risk that Harrington might be injured. “Incurred risk can be found
as a matter of law only if the evidence is without conflict and the sole inference
to be drawn is that the plaintiff knew and appreciated the danger caused by the
defendant’s negligence, but nevertheless accepted it voluntarily.” Lilge v.
Russell’s Trailer Repair, Inc., 565 N.E.2d 1146, 1150–51 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
Jessica bases this argument, as she did her first, upon her testimony and seems
to be arguing that Harrington should be assessed a greater portion of fault
because of her testimony that Harrington was the initial aggressor. At the very
least, while it is true that the trial court found that Harrington bumped Jessica,
it did not find that Harrington did so intentionally. This argument, as with
Jessica’s first, is based on the notion that the small claims court was required to
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 5 of 7
credit her version of events, which it was not. We reject Jessica’s second
invitation to reweigh the evidence. See Estate of Henry, 77 N.E.3d at 1204.
II. Damages
[9] Finally, Jessica argues that there is insufficient evidence to sustain the small
claims court’s award of $6500.00 in damages to Harrington. We disagree.
Harrington testified that, as result of Jessica’s battery, she incurred more than
$3000.00 in medical bills, lost approximately $15,000.00 of bonus income, and
suffered other losses, with the total coming to over $30,000.00. This testimony
is certainly more than enough to sustain an award of $6500.00 in damages. See
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Armstrong, 442 N.E.2d 349, 357 (Ind. 1982) (“[U]nder the
evidence presented, the jury was at liberty to award as much as $10,000.00 […]
or as little as $4,250.00[.] The [$8729.62] verdict was within the limits of the
evidence and cannot be disturbed.”).
[10] Jessica claims that the small claims court’s award is partially based on a
$3000.00 surgery that had not yet occurred at the time of trial and may never
occur. To the extent that the small claims court’s findings address medical
expenses, however, they address only the medical expenses incurred by
Harrington prior to trial. Jessica also suggests that any claims of damages
without documentation cannot be awarded. Jessica does not cite to any
authority for the proposition that testimony unsupported by documentation is
insufficient to support an award of damages, and we are aware of none.
Finally, Jessica points to some evidence that she claims tends to undercut
Harrington’s evidence as to damages. Even if we assume, arguendo, that Jessica
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 6 of 7
is correct that the evidence she identifies undercuts Harrington’s, it was the
small-claims court’s job to evaluate the evidence, and we will not second-guess
its conclusions in this regard. See Estate of Henry, 77 N.E.3d at 1204.
[11] We affirm the judgment of the small claims court.
Vaidik, C.J., and Riley, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-SC-2598 | September 30, 2019 Page 7 of 7