In the case of The Estate of Gary Pfafman v. Lancaster et al., Kole Craig was electrocuted at the Diehm farm and suffered severe injuries. He would later pass away due to the trauma he sustained. His estate proceeded to a jury trial against Gary Pfafman, the electrician, who had performed electrical work in the barn where Craig was electrocuted.
An investigation revealed that Pfafman had not installed a bonding jumper at the service panel, which meant the electrical current did not flow to the breaker. Because of this mistake by Pfafman, the electrical current flowed to the panel box and ground wire and energized the metal fed barn, part of which Craig would come into contact with.
The jury in the Indiana trial court returned a verdict in favor of Pfafman. Craig’s Estate filed a motion to correct error and for a new trial, alleging the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The trial court granted their motion based on the Estate’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law — Pfafman would appeal that decision.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the trial court’s findings and conclusions were insufficient under Trial Rule 59(J). The Court held that the trial court erroneously concluded that Pfafman’s conduct was the sole cause of Craig’s injuries. They also said that the trial court did not address the possibility that the jury allocated 100% of fault to the Diehm farm, despite lack of an intervening cause. As a result, the Court reversed the decision of the trial court to grant a new trial and reinstated the jury’s verdict in favor of Pfafman’s Estate.
If you or a loved one have been affected by an accident or death, contact an experienced personal injury attorney at Hurst Limontes, LLC. We have decades of combined experience fighting for our clients in any number of personal injury claims. Call 317-636-0808 or email us for a FREE and confidential consultation.