Ind. Worker Fails to Express Alleged Evidentiary Flaws by Trial Court

Indianapolis, IN (WorkersCompensation.com) -- In Indiana, if someone appeals a trial court decision on grounds that the court erred in some way when it came to ruling on evidence in the case, procedural rules require showing just what evidentiary ruling the appellant is taking issue with.

Because a worker for a railroad company did not direct the appellate court to such a ruling in Kirlin v. CSX Transportation Inc., 213 N.E. 3d 1124 (Ind. Ct. App. 07/25/23, unpublished), the court had no basis for keeping his appeal alive.

The worker slipped, fell, and was injured while attempting to retrieve traffic cones from the bed of his company-issued service truck.

The worker sued the company, claiming that the company was negligent in failing to equip his truck with a cone holder.

At trial, the jury ruled in the company's favor, prompting the worker to appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, arguing that the trial court wrongfully excluded certain evidence from the jury.

The court explained that it would not consider an appellant's assertion on appeal when the appellant has not presented "cogent argument" supported by authority and references to the record as required by state rules.

In this case, the court explained that the worker did not identify any ruling by which the trial court excluded evidence that other company trucks were equipped with cone holders at the time of the worker's accident.

Nothing that it would not "address arguments which are either inappropriate, too poorly developed or improperly expressed to be understood," the court ruled against the worker.

Share This Article: