Sec. 8. (a) This section applies to an action based on
fault that:
(1) is brought against two (2) or more defendants; and
(2) is tried to a jury.
(b) The court, unless all the parties agree otherwise, shall instruct
the jury to determine its verdict in the following manner:
(1) The jury shall determine the percentage of fault of the
claimant, of the defendants, and of any person who is a nonparty.
The jury may not be informed of any immunity defense that might
be available to a nonparty. In assessing percentage of fault, the
jury shall consider the fault of all persons who caused or
contributed to cause the alleged injury, death, or damage to
property, tangible or intangible, regardless of whether the person
was or could have been named as a party. The percentage of fault
of parties to the action may total less than one hundred percent
(100%) if the jury finds that fault contributing to cause the
claimant's loss has also come from a nonparty or nonparties.
(2) If the percentage of fault of the claimant is greater than fifty
percent (50%) of the total fault involved in the incident which
caused the claimant's death, injury, or property damage, the jury
shall return a verdict for the defendants and no further
deliberation of the jury is required.
(3) If the percentage of fault of the claimant is not greater than
fifty percent (50%) of the total fault, the jury shall then determine
the total amount of damages the claimant would be entitled to
recover if contributory fault were disregarded.
(4) The jury next shall multiply the percentage of fault of each
defendant by the amount of damages determined under
subdivision (3) and shall enter a verdict against each defendant
(and such other defendants as are liable with the defendant by
reason of their relationship to a defendant) in the amount of the
product of the multiplication of each defendant's percentage of
fault times the amount of damages as determined under
subdivision (3).
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-33-5(b).]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.47.
Notes of Decisions
TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010).
· cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 34-51-2-8(b)(1). Because we have determined that fault should not have been allocated to TRW and Goodyear, the remaining jury fault allocations to the remaining parties, Ford and the plaintiff's decedent, fail to meet the condition to allocate less than 100% of the…”
Paragon Fam. Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003).
· cites it 2× “I.C. § 34-51-2-8. This Court recently observed that when a jury finds that the conduct of a second actor was a superseding cause foreclosing the first actor as a proximate cause of the claimed injury, "[this is simply another way of saying, in comparative fault terms, that the…”
Bondex Int'l v. Ott, 774 N.E.2d 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 6× “An examination of Indiana Code § 34-51-2-8 proves otherwise.”
City of Crawfordsville v. Price, 778 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “2d at 109 ; see Ind.Code § 34-51-2-8 (1998). Even if the City was negligent in failing to follow the proper statutory requirements, the City’s negligence does not 'bar the City’s negligence claim against DPE.”
U-Haul Int'l, Inc. v. Nulls Mach. & Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “IC § 34-51-2-8. A nonparty is a party that caused or contributed to the cause of the alleged injury, but which has not been joined in the action as a defendant.”
Beam v. Wausau Ins. Co., 743 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Code § 34-51-27 and Ind.Code § 34-51-2-8, sections regarding jury instructions where damages and comparative fault are being determined, provide that the jury is to determine the percentage of fault of the parties involved.”
Smith v. Delta Tau Delta, 988 N.E.2d 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “24). Under the Comparative Fault Act, liability is to be apportioned among persons whose fault caused or contributed to causing the loss in proportion to their percentages of fault as found by the jury.”
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-8(b) — 2 cases
Bondex Int'l v. Ott, 774 N.E.2d 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
“An examination of Indiana Code § 34-51-2-8 proves otherwise.”
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-8(b)(1) — 1 case
TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010).
“" Ind.Code § 34-51-2-8(b)(1). Because we have determined that fault should not have been allocated to TRW and Goodyear, the remaining jury fault allocations to the remaining parties, Ford and the plaintiff's decedent, fail to meet the condition to allocate less than 100% of the…”
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-8(b)(2) — 1 case
TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010).
“" Ind.Code § 34-51-2-8(b)(1). Because we have determined that fault should not have been allocated to TRW and Goodyear, the remaining jury fault allocations to the remaining parties, Ford and the plaintiff's decedent, fail to meet the condition to allocate less than 100% of the…”
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-8(b)(l) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.