/Users/andrea/_magisterarbeit/korpus/clean/testkorpus/1/file_63.html NN ----------------------------------------- : FOR IN PUBLICATION NN ATTORNEYS NNS FOR IN APPELLANTS NNS . SENT ATTORNEYS NNS FOR IN APPELLEES NNS . SENT KARL NP L NP . SENT MULVANEY NP THOMAS NP E NP . SENT HAMER NP DAVID NP C NP . SENT CAMPBELL NP Anderson NP , , Indiana NP NANA NN QUAY NN SMITH NN CANDACE NP L NP . SENT SAGE NN DAVID NP V NN . SENT DORRIS NP Bingham NP Summers NP Welsh NP Spilman NP LLP NP Dorris NP Law NP Firm NN , , P NN . SENT C LS . SENT Indianapolis NP , , Indiana NP Bloomington NP , , Indiana NP JULIA NP BLACKWELL NP GELINAS NP PATRICIA NP A NP . SENT SMALL JJ KEVIN NP C NP . SENT SCHIFERL NP WILLIAM NP L NP . SENT BROOM NN , , III NP Locke NP Reynolds NP LLP NP Barrett NP , , Twomey NP , , Broom NP , , Hughes NP Wesley NP Indianapolis NP , , Indiana NP Carbondale NP , , Illinois NP IN IN THE DT COURT NN OF IN APPEALS NNS OF IN INDIANA NP IRA NP C NP . SENT RITTER NP and CC THE DT KROGER NP CO NP . SENT , , Appellants NNS Defendants NNS , , vs NP . SENT No UH . SENT 49 CD A NP 02 CD 9912 CD CV NP 883 CD JERRY NN STANTON NP and CC RUTH NN A NP . SENT STANTON NP , , Appellees NNS Plaintiffs NNS . SENT APPEAL NN FROM IN THE DT MARION NP SUPERIOR JJ COURT NN NO RB . SENT 10 RB The DT Honorable JJ Richard NP H NP . SENT Huston NP , , Judge NP Cause NP No NP . SENT 49 CD D NP 10 CD 9506 CD CT NP 959 CD March NP 14 CD , , 2001 CD OPINION NN FOR IN PUBLICATION NN BARNES NP , , Judge NP Case NP Summary NN This DT case NN stems VVZ from IN a DT personal JJ injury NN action NN brought VVN against IN Ira NP Ritter NP and CC the DT Kroger NP Company NP Kroger NP as IN a DT result NN of IN an DT accident NN occurring VVG on IN Kroger NP property NN while IN the DT Plaintiff NN , , Jerry NP Stanton NP , , was VBD working VVG as IN a DT truck NN driver NN for IN a DT Kroger NP subsidiary NN . SENT The DT jury NN awarded VVD 55 CD , , 000 CD , , 000 CD in IN compensatory JJ damages NNS after IN determining VVG that IN Stanton NP was VBD 20 CD at IN fault NN . SENT We PP affirm VV . SENT Issues NP Kroger NP raises VVZ two CD primary JJ issues NNS for IN our PP$ review NN , , namely RB . SENT I PP . SENT whether IN the DT trial NN court NN erroneously RB denied VVD its PP$ motion NN to TO dismiss VV for IN lack NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN because IN of IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN of IN the DT Indiana NP Worker NP s PP Compensation NN Act NP Act NP . SENT and CC II NP . SENT whether IN the DT jury NN awarded VVD excessive JJ damages NNS . SENT Facts NNS Forty NN eight CD year NN old JJ Stanton NP was VBD a DT truck NN driver NN for IN Gateway NP Freightline NP Corporation NP Gateway NP , , a DT wholly RB owned VVN subsidiary NN of IN Kroger NP . SENT On IN May NP 6 CD , , 1995 CD , , he PP traveled VVD from IN his PP$ home NN state NN of IN Illinois NP to TO Indianapolis NP for IN the DT purpose NN of IN returning VVG empty JJ milk NN containers NNS to TO Kroger NP s PP dairy NN . SENT Prior RB to TO leaving VVG Kroger NP s PP Indianapolis NP Distribution NN Center NP , , he PP stopped VVD for IN a DT break NN and CC parked VVD his PP$ tractor NN trailer NN beside IN a DT parked VVN trailer NN . SENT In IN the DT meantime NN , , Ritter NP , , a DT Kroger NP employee NN , , began VVD backing VVG a DT Kroger NP tractor NN toward IN the DT same JJ parked VVN trailer NN . SENT Unaware JJ that IN Ritter NP was VBD moving VVG toward IN him PP , , Stanton NP walked VVD between IN Ritter NP s PP backing VVG tractor NN and CC the DT parked VVN trailer NN . SENT After IN Stanton NP stopped VVD momentarily RB , , he PP was VBD pinned VVN between IN the DT parked VVN trailer NN and CC Ritter NP s PP tractor NN , , suffering VVG massive JJ injuries NNS . SENT Stanton NP and CC his PP$ wife NN , , Alfie NP , , filed VVD suit NN in IN June NP 1995 CD against IN Ritter NP and CC Kroger NP , , alleging VVG negligence NN resulting VVG in IN permanent JJ injuries NNS to TO Stanton NP and CC loss NN of IN consortium NN to TO his PP$ wife NN . SENT Two CD years NNS later RBR , , Kroger NP filed VVD a DT motion NN to TO dismiss VV for IN lack NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN on IN the DT basis NN that IN the DT claims NNS were VBD barred VVN by IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN of IN the DT Act NP because IN Stanton NP was VBD employed VVN by IN a DT Kroger NP subsidiary NN . SENT The DT following VVG year NN , , the DT trial NN court NN denied VVD the DT motion NN and CC refused VVD Kroger NP s PP request VVP for IN interlocutory JJ appeal NN . SENT The DT case NN was VBD tried VVN to TO a DT jury NN for IN several JJ weeks NNS in IN mid JJ 1999 CD . SENT At IN trial NN , , the DT parties NNS stipulated VVD that IN Stanton NP suffered VVD 1 CD , , 281 CD , , 741 CD in IN special JJ damages NNS , , including VVG past JJ medical JJ expenses NNS , , lost VVD earnings NNS , , and CC lost VVD future JJ pension NN benefits NNS . SENT Kroger NP defended VVD the DT suit NN on IN the DT basis NN that IN Stanton NP s PP claim VVP was VBD barred VVN because IN he PP was VBD totally RB at IN fault NN for IN the DT accident NN . SENT During IN his PP$ closing NN argument NN , , Stanton NP suggested VVD the DT following VVG damage NN amounts NNS . SENT 2 CD million CD for IN future JJ medical JJ expenses NNS . SENT 3 CD million CD for IN past JJ disfigurement NN . SENT 10 CD million CD for IN future JJ disfigurement NN . SENT 7 CD million CD for IN past JJ pain NN and CC suffering VVG ability NN to TO function VV as IN a DT whole JJ person NN . SENT 30 CD million CD for IN future JJ pain NN and CC suffering NN . SENT 2 CD million CD for IN past JJ loss NN of IN consortium NN . SENT and CC 10 CD million CD for IN future JJ loss NN of IN consortium NN . SENT Including VVG the DT 1 CD , , 281 CD , , 741 CD in IN special JJ damages NNS , , Stanton NP requested VVD a DT total JJ verdict NN of IN 65 CD , , 281 CD , , 741 CD . SENT After IN deliberating VVG for IN a DT relatively RB short JJ time NN , , the DT jury NN returned VVD a DT verdict NN in IN favor NN of IN the DT Stantons NP for IN 55 CD , , 000 CD , , 000 CD , , which WDT reflected VVD a DT 20 CD reduction NN or CC discount NN for IN Stanton NP s PP comparative JJ fault NN . SENT Analysis NN I NN . SENT Exclusivity NN of IN Worker NP s PP Compensation NN Remedy VV The DT threshold NN issue NN this DT case NN presents NNS is VBZ whether IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN of IN the DT Act NP bars NNS Stanton NP s PP claim VVP . SENT This DT provision NN of IN the DT Act NP provides VVZ . SENT T NN he PP rights NNS and CC remedies NNS granted VVD an DT employee NN See VV footnote NN subject JJ to TO I PP . SENT C LS . SENT 22 CD 3 CD 2 CD through IN I PP . SENT C LS . SENT 22 CD 3 CD 6 CD on IN account NN of IN personal JJ injury NN or CC death NN by IN accident NN shall MD exclude VV all DT other JJ rights NNS and CC remedies NNS of IN such JJ employee NN , , the DT employee NN s PP personal JJ representatives NNS , , dependents NNS , , or CC next JJ of IN kin NN , , at IN common JJ law NN or CC otherwise RB , , on IN account NN of IN such JJ injury NN or CC death NN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT Ind NP . SENT Code NP 22 CD 3 CD 2 CD 6 CD . SENT The DT only JJ way NN for IN an DT employee NN to TO recover VV for IN personal JJ injuries NNS arising VVG out RP of IN and CC in IN the DT course NN of IN employment NN is VBZ through IN worker NN s PP compensation NN . SENT Kroger NP claims VVZ that IN Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP are VBP the DT same JJ employer NN for IN purposes NNS of IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN , , and CC , , therefore RB , , that IN Stanton NP s PP sole JJ remedy NN is VBZ through IN worker NN s PP compensation NN . SENT A DT . SENT Standard NP of IN Review NP The DT appropriate JJ standard NN of IN review NN is VBZ disputed VVN by IN the DT parties NNS with IN respect NN to TO the DT question NN of IN jurisdiction NN . SENT Kroger NP filed VVD a DT motion NN to TO dismiss VV for IN lack NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN pursuant JJ to TO Indiana NP Trial NP Rule NP 12 CD b SYM 1 CD . SENT In IN ruling NN on IN a DT motion NN to TO dismiss VV for IN lack NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN , , the DT trial NN court NN may MD resolve VV factual JJ disputes NNS . SENT Perry NP v NN . SENT Stitzer NP Buick NP GMC NP , , 637 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1282 CD , , 1286 CD 87 CD Ind NP . SENT 1994 CD . SENT Common JJ Council NP v NN . SENT Matonovich NP , , 691 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1326 CD , , 1328 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1998 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT In IN doing VVG so IN it PP may MD consider VV not RB only RB the DT complaint NN and CC motion NN to TO dismiss VV but CC any DT affidavits NNS or CC other JJ evidence NN submitted VVD . SENT Id NP . SENT Moreover RB , , a DT court NN may MD weigh VV the DT evidence NN to TO determine VV the DT existence NN of IN the DT requisite JJ jurisdictional JJ facts NNS . SENT Id NP . SENT It PP is VBZ well RB settled VVN that IN when WRB the DT facts NNS are VBP not RB in IN dispute NN , , we PP review VVP a DT ruling NN on IN a DT motion NN to TO dismiss VV de NP novo NP . SENT See VV , , e NN . SENT g NN . SENT , , Common NP Council NP , , 691 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 1328 CD . SENT Rieheman NN v NN . SENT Cornerstone NP Seeds NP , , Inc NP . SENT , , 671 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 489 CD , , 491 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1996 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT When WRB the DT facts NNS related VVN to TO subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN are VBP in IN dispute NN , , the DT proper JJ standard NN of IN review NN is VBZ not RB as RB clear JJ . SENT Some DT cases NNS have VHP said VVD that IN when WRB we PP review VVP a DT trial NN court NN s PP ruling VVG on IN a DT motion NN to TO dismiss VV for IN lack NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN , , we PP may MD affirm VV the DT judgment NN on IN any DT theory NN supported VVN by IN the DT evidence NN of IN record NN . SENT Vranicar NP v NN . SENT Board NP of IN Comm NP rs NP of IN Brown NP County NP , , 730 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 752 CD , , 755 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 2000 CD . SENT M NP . SENT V NN . SENT v NN . SENT Charter NP Terre NP Haute NP Behavioral JJ Health NP System NP , , Inc NP . SENT , , 712 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1064 CD , , 1066 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1999 CD . SENT Additionally RB , , when WRB in IN ruling NN on IN such PDT a DT motion NN the DT trial NN court NN considers VVZ evidence NN outside IN the DT complaint NN affidavits NNS , , etc FW . SENT , , holds VVZ a DT hearing NN during IN which WDT the DT parties NNS present VVP arguments NNS regarding VVG the DT evidence NN , , and CC issues NNS findings NNS of IN fact NN and CC conclusions NNS thereon RB , , an DT appellate JJ court NN will MD review VV the DT trial NN court VV s PP resolution NN of IN the DT factual JJ disputes NNS by IN applying VVG a DT clearly RB erroneous JJ standard NN . SENT Lawson NP v NN . SENT Raney NP Mfg NP . SENT , , 678 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 122 CD , , 126 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1997 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT We PP have VHP stated VVN that IN the DT question NN of IN whether IN an DT injury NN occurred VVD in IN the DT course NN of IN employment NN depends VVZ upon IN the DT facts NNS and CC circumstances NNS of IN each DT case NN . SENT Northcutt NP v NN . SENT Smith NP , , 642 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 254 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1994 CD . SENT In IN that DT case NN , , we PP reasoned VVD . SENT a DT lthough NN the DT Northcutts NNS concede VVP that IN Northcutt NP s PP injury NN arose VVD in IN the DT course NN of IN his PP$ employment NN and CC the DT facts NNS are VBP not RB in IN dispute NN regarding VVG how WRB , , where WRB , , and CC when WRB the DT injury NN occurred VVD , , the DT question NN of IN whether IN Smith NP is VBZ subject JJ to TO liability NN pursuant JJ to TO the DT Act NP remains VVZ a DT mixed JJ question NN of IN law NN and CC fact NN , , which WDT ultimately RB will MD determine VV whether IN the DT trial NN court NN has VHZ jurisdiction NN over IN the DT subject JJ matter NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 256 CD emphasis NN added VVD . SENT We PP concluded VVD that IN the DT review NN of IN such PDT a DT factual JJ determination NN was VBD for IN an DT abuse NN of IN discretion NN . SENT Id NP . SENT Despite IN the DT semantic JJ differences NNS among IN these DT cases NNS in IN articulating VVG the DT standard NN of IN review NN , , the DT overarching JJ principle NN is VBZ clear JJ . SENT when WRB the DT trial NN court NN resolves VVZ factual JJ issues NNS in IN reaching VVG its PP$ decision NN on IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN , , deference NN should MD be VB afforded VVN on IN appeal NN just RB as RB in IN any DT other JJ type NN of IN case NN where WRB the DT trial NN court NN weighs VVZ the DT facts NNS . SENT The DT standard NN of IN review NN for IN the DT jurisdiction NN determination NN in IN this DT case NN then RB turns VVZ on IN the DT question NN of IN whether IN there EX were VBD any DT questions NNS of IN fact NN before IN the DT trial NN court NN in IN ruling NN on IN the DT motion NN to TO dismiss VV . SENT The DT parties NNS may MD not RB dispute VV the DT facts NNS surrounding VVG the DT accident NN , , but CC they PP do VVP dispute NN some DT of IN the DT facts NNS and CC many JJ of IN the DT inferences NNS to TO be VB drawn VVN therefrom RB relating VVG to TO the DT relationships NNS between IN Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP and CC between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP . SENT The DT trial NN court NN necessarily RB made VVD factual JJ determinations NNS in IN reaching VVG its PP$ conclusion NN that IN Stanton NP s PP claim VVP was VBD not RB barred VVN by IN the DT Act NP , , even RB though IN it PP did VVD not RB issue VV written VVN findings NNS detailing VVG those DT specific JJ determinations NNS . SENT Therefore RB , , we PP will MD give VV deference NN to TO the DT trial NN court VV s PP decision NN when WRB reviewing VVG this DT issue NN . SENT We PP now RB turn VVP to TO the DT substance NN of IN the DT arguments NNS . SENT B LS . SENT McQuade NP v NN . SENT Draw VV Tite NP , , Inc NP . SENT The DT thrust NN of IN Kroger NP s PP jurisdictional JJ argument NN is VBZ that IN Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP were VBD the DT same JJ employer NN at IN the DT time NN of IN the DT accident NN and CC , , as IN a DT result NN , , Stanton NP is VBZ prohibited VVN from IN suing VVG Kroger NP . SENT In IN effect NN , , Kroger NP is VBZ asking VVG us PP to TO permit VV it PP to TO defensively RB pierce VV the DT corporate JJ veil NN erected VVD when WRB it PP formed VVD its PP$ parent NN subsidiary NN corporate JJ structure NN and CC find VV that IN it PP was VBD actually RB the DT employer NN of IN Stanton NP by IN virtue NN of IN the DT fact NN that IN it PP is VBZ Gateway NP s PP parent NN company NN . SENT The DT watershed JJ case NN addressing VVG this DT issue NN is VBZ McQuade NP v NN . SENT Draw VV Tite NP , , Inc NP . SENT , , 659 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1016 CD Ind NP . SENT 1995 CD . SENT In IN that DT case NN , , an DT injured JJ employee NN brought VVD a DT negligence NN action NN against IN her PP$ employer NN s PP parent JJ corporation NN for IN injuries NNS sustained VVN in IN the DT course NN of IN employment NN . SENT The DT trial NN court NN held VVN that IN the DT parent NN company NN was VBD so RB interconnected VVN with IN the DT subsidiary NN that IN it PP was VBD equivalent JJ to TO the DT plaintiff NN s PP employer NN under IN the DT Act NP and CC , , therefore RB , , that IN the DT plaintiff NN could MD not RB pursue VV the DT cause NN of IN action NN because IN the DT exclusive JJ remedy NN for IN her PP$ injuries NNS against IN her PP$ employer NN was VBD under IN the DT Act NP . SENT McQuade NP , , 659 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 1017 CD . SENT Our PP$ supreme JJ court NN reversed VVD the DT trial NN court NN and CC this DT court NN , , rejecting VVG our PP$ conclusion NN that IN because IN the DT parent NN company NN oversaw VVD and CC controlled VVD the DT subsidiary NN s PP operations NNS , , reported VVD the DT subsidiary NN s PP earnings NNS as IN profits NNS , , shared VVD a DT worker NN s PP compensation NN policy NN with IN the DT subsidiary NN , , and CC performed VVN payroll NN and CC accounting NN functions NNS for IN the DT subsidiary NN , , the DT parent NN and CC subsidiary NN corporations NNS were VBD not RB distinct JJ and CC separately RB operated VVN corporations NNS . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1020 CD . SENT The DT supreme JJ court NN held VVN as IN a DT case NN of IN first JJ impression NN that IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN of IN the DT Act NP did VVD not RB prevent VV an DT employee NN of IN a DT subsidiary NN from IN suing VVG a DT parent NN corporation NN for IN injuries NNS sustained VVN in IN the DT course NN of IN employment NN . SENT Id NP . SENT The DT supreme JJ court NN recognized VVD a DT subsidiary NN and CC its PP$ parent NN corporation NN as IN separate JJ legal JJ entities NNS and CC acknowledged VVD that IN a DT court NN may MD exercise VV its PP$ equitable JJ power NN in IN disregarding VVG the DT corporate JJ form NN . SENT Id NP . SENT However RB , , the DT supreme JJ court NN emphatically RB concluded VVN there EX is VBZ little JJ likelihood NN that IN equity NN will MD ever RB require VV us PP to TO pierce VV the DT corporate JJ veil NN to TO protect VV the DT same JJ party NN who WP erected VVD it PP . SENT Id NP . SENT emphasis NN added VVD . SENT Because IN corporate JJ parents NNS are VBP not RB covered VVN under IN the DT language NN of IN the DT exclusivity NN clause NN , , and CC any DT uncertainty NN as RB to TO the DT clause NN s PP applicability NN calls NNS for IN a DT narrow JJ construction NN of IN the DT statute NN in IN favor NN of IN the DT employee NN , , the DT supreme JJ court NN found VVD no DT statutory JJ basis NN for IN the DT trial NN court NN s PP grant VVP of IN summary NN judgment NN in IN favor NN of IN the DT corporate JJ parent NN . SENT Id NP . SENT In IN so RB holding VVG , , the DT court NN cited VVD the DT well RB reasoned VVN analysis NN of IN the DT Sixth NP Circuit NP , , which WDT had VHD adopted VVN the DT most RBS widely RB accepted VVN approach NN and CC stated VVN . SENT A DT business NN enterprise NN has VHZ a DT range NN of IN choice NN in IN controlling VVG its PP$ own JJ corporate JJ structure NN . SENT But CC reciprocal JJ obligations NNS arise VVP as IN a DT result NN of IN the DT choice NN it PP makes VVZ . SENT The DT owners NNS may MD take VV advantage NN of IN the DT benefits NNS of IN dividing VVG the DT business NN into IN separate JJ corporate JJ parts NNS , , but CC principles NNS of IN reciprocity NN require VVP that IN courts NNS also RB recognize VVP the DT separate JJ identities NNS of IN the DT enterprises NNS when WRB sued VVN by IN an DT injured JJ employee NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1019 CD quoting VVG Boggs NP v NN . SENT Blue NP Diamond NP Coal NP Co NP . SENT , , 590 CD F NN . SENT 2 CD d SYM 655 CD , , 661 CD 62 CD 6 CD th NN Cir NP . SENT 1979 CD , , cert NN . SENT denied VVN , , 444 CD U NP . SENT S NP . SENT 836 CD , , 100 CD S NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT 71 CD 1979 CD . SENT See VV footnote NN Our PP$ supreme JJ court NN reiterated VVD that IN it PP was VBD , , after IN all DT , , the DT defendant NN who WP chose VVD to TO structure VV itself PP in IN its PP$ present JJ multi NNS corporate JJ form NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1020 CD . SENT The DT supreme JJ court NN clarified VVN its PP$ holding NN by IN stating VVG , , w NN hat NN our PP$ decision NN is VBZ meant VVN to TO prevent VV is VBZ a DT situation NN where WRB an DT injured JJ party NN would MD be VB deprived VVN of IN his PP$ or CC her PP$ day NN in IN court NN by IN the DT purely RB fortuitous JJ circumstance NN that IN the DT alleged JJ tortfeasor NN is VBZ the DT corporate JJ parent NN of IN the DT injured JJ party NN s PP employer NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1020 CD n NN . SENT 7 CD . SENT On IN its PP$ face NN , , Kroger NP s PP entreaty NN to TO pierce VV its PP$ corporate JJ veil NN defensively RB by IN claiming VVG Stanton NP cannot NN sue VV the DT parent NN corporation NN of IN his PP$ employer NN clearly RB fails VVZ in IN light NN of IN the DT express JJ holding NN by IN the DT McQuade NP court NN rejecting VVG such PDT an DT attempt NN . SENT Nonetheless RB , , Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN McQuade NP is VBZ distinguishable JJ because IN the DT relationship NN between IN it PP and CC Gateway NP is VBZ more RBR interconnected VVN than IN the DT relationship NN between IN the DT parent NN and CC subsidiary NN corporations NNS in IN that DT case NN . SENT Our PP$ review NN of IN the DT record NN leads VVZ us PP to TO conclude VV that IN although IN there EX is VBZ undoubtedly RB some DT degree NN of IN interconnectedness NN between IN Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP , , we PP see VVP no DT legal JJ compulsion NN to TO depart VV from IN the DT McQuade NP holding NN . SENT Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP had VHD a DT contract NN governing VVG the DT terms NNS for IN the DT services NNS Gateway NP provided VVD to TO Kroger NP . SENT It PP contains VVZ several JJ clauses NNS contradicting VVG Kroger NP s PP assertion NN that IN it PP considered VVD Gateway NP to TO be VB the DT same JJ entity NN and CC or CC that IN it PP perceived VVD Gateway NP drivers NNS to TO be VB its PP$ own JJ direct JJ employees NNS . SENT The DT contract NN identifies VVZ the DT companies NNS as IN separate JJ entities NNS and CC states NNS that IN Gateway NP was VBD engaged VVN in IN the DT business NN of IN warehousing VVG and CC distributing VVG dry JJ groceries NNS , , health NN and CC beauty NN aids NNS , , dairy NN perishables NNS and CC produce VV product NN , , meat NN , , frozen JJ food NN and CC fresh JJ dairy NN products NNS and CC that DT Kroger NP desires NNS to TO utilize VV the DT facilities NNS and CC services NNS of IN Gateway NP . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 932 CD . SENT The DT contract NN provides VVZ that IN Gateway NP is VBZ a DT bailee NN only RB and CC that DT title NN to TO all DT product NN delivered VVN for IN Kroger NP shall MD remain VV in IN Kroger NP . SENT Id NP . SENT Significantly RB , , the DT contract NN contains VVZ mutual JJ clauses NNS whereby WRB each DT company NN agreed VVD to TO hold VV the DT other JJ harmless JJ and CC indemnify VV the DT other JJ from IN all DT claims NNS , , suits NNS , , and CC judgments NNS for IN damages NNS caused VVN by IN the DT act NN or CC omission NN of IN its PP$ agent NN or CC employee NN . SENT Also RB , , Gateway NP was VBD required VVN to TO furnish VV Kroger NP with IN a DT certificate NN evidencing VVG coverage NN under IN Illinois NP worker NN s VVZ compensation NN laws NNS . SENT Kroger NP is VBZ required VVN to TO pay VV Gateway NP for IN each DT case NN of IN product NN it PP delivered VVD and CC for IN transportation NN charges NNS according VVG to TO the DT published VVN tariff NN . SENT Attached VVN to TO the DT contract NN are VBP several JJ exhibits NNS detailing VVG various JJ aspects NNS of IN the DT work NN to TO be VB performed VVN by IN Gateway NP . SENT One CD of IN the DT exhibits NNS indicates VVZ that IN Gateway NP would MD deliver VV store NN mail NN to TO Kroger NP stores NNS for IN a DT per FW delivery NN fee NN . SENT Another DT exhibit NN concerns NNS baled VVD salvage NN and CC provides VVZ that IN Gateway NP would MD charge VV Kroger NP a DT fee NN per IN bale NN for IN handling VVG it PP . SENT The DT exhibit NN also RB states VVZ that IN a DT buyer NN should MD direct VV checks NNS for IN the DT bales NNS to TO Gateway NP and CC that DT Gateway NP would MD send VV checks NNS to TO Kroger NP for IN its PP$ portion NN . SENT These DT contract NN provisions NNS are VBP not RB the DT type NN one PP would MD typically RB expect VV Kroger NP to TO have VH in IN an DT agreement NN with IN its PP$ own JJ employees NNS . SENT There EX are VBP other JJ indicia NN of IN the DT nature NN of IN the DT relationship NN between IN Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP . SENT First RB , , the DT hiring NN of IN anyone NN below IN the DT top JJ management NN of IN Gateway NP was VBD left VVN to TO Gateway NP employees NNS . SENT The DT employment NN application NN completed VVN by IN Stanton NP was VBD labeled VVN as RB that IN of IN Gateway NP . SENT After IN the DT accident NN , , Gateway NP filed VVD the DT First NP Report NP of IN Injury NP or CC Illness NN as IN the DT employer NN without IN referencing VVG Kroger NP . SENT Kroger NP maintains VVZ that IN it PP had VHD at IN least JJS indirect JJ authority NN to TO discipline NN Gateway NP drivers NNS . SENT It PP states VVZ that IN if IN a DT Kroger NP store NN manager NN had VHD a DT problem NN with IN a DT particular JJ Gateway NP driver NN , , the DT manager NN would MD call VV Paul NP Upton NP , , Gateway NP s PP Vice NP President NP and CC General NP Manager NP , , to TO complain VV . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Brief NP p NN . SENT 20 CD . SENT In IN addition NN , , Kroger NP claims VVZ that RB c SYM ommon NN sense NN dictates VVZ that IN Kroger NP had VHD the DT right NN and CC power NN to TO compel VV the DT discharge NN of IN a DT Gateway NP driver NN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Brief NP p NN . SENT 20 CD . SENT Stanton NP responds VVZ that IN Kroger NP did VVD not RB have VH authority NN to TO terminate VV a DT Gateway NP driver NN due JJ to TO the DT local JJ addendum NN to TO the DT union NN contract NN with IN Gateway NP s PP drivers NNS pursuant JJ to TO which WDT only RB Gateway NP could MD terminate VV them PP . SENT Kroger NP s PP Manager NP of IN Safety NP and CC Health NP testified VVD that IN to TO the DT best JJS of IN his PP$ knowledge NN , , no DT Gateway NP Teamster NN driver NN was VBD ever RB suspended VVN by IN anyone NN other JJ than IN an DT employee NN of IN Gateway NP . SENT He PP also RB stated VVD that IN if IN a DT Kroger NP store NN manager NN had VHD a DT problem NN with IN a DT particular JJ Gateway NP driver NN , , the DT manager NN would MD call VV Gateway NP s PP Vice NP President NP to TO complain VV but CC that IN Gateway NP disciplined VVD the DT driver NN if IN it PP was VBD deemed VVN necessary JJ . SENT Kroger NP s PP Transportation NP Manager NP testified VVD that IN she PP cannot NN suspend VV or CC fire VV a DT Gateway NP driver NN because IN it PP s PP a DT different JJ contract NN and CC they PP have VHP a DT boss NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 1510 CD . SENT Gateway NP s PP Vice NP President NP and CC General NP Manager NP testified VVD that IN even RB at IN the DT store NN level NN , , Kroger NP employees NNS would MD not RB suspend VV a DT Gateway NP driver NN . SENT Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN the DT fact NN that IN it PP may MD not RB have VH had VHN the DT absolute JJ authority NN to TO directly RB terminate VV Gateway NP employees NNS does VVZ not RB mean VV that IN it PP could MD not RB compel VV such JJ termination NN . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Reply VV Brief NN p NN . SENT 14 CD . SENT However RB , , the DT ability NN to TO complain VV about IN a DT driver NN is VBZ not RB the DT same JJ thing NN as IN the DT authority NN to TO discipline NN the DT driver NN . SENT Any DT customer NN has VHZ the DT ability NN to TO complain VV about IN a DT driver NN but CC not RB the DT authority NN to TO directly RB discipline NN that IN driver NN . SENT It PP is VBZ clear JJ from IN this DT evidence NN that IN although IN Kroger NP may MD have VH had VHN some DT influence NN over IN such JJ decisions NNS , , Gateway NP ultimately RB controlled VVD the DT hiring NN and CC discipline NN of IN its PP$ drivers NNS . SENT Second RB , , the DT parties NNS agree VVP that IN Kroger NP provides VVZ the DT capital NN that IN funds NNS Gateway NP s PP operating VVG budget NN because IN Gateway NP is VBZ operated VVN under IN a DT zero CD based VVN budget NN . SENT That DT is VBZ to TO say VV , , on IN a DT daily JJ basis NN , , all DT cash NN in IN excess NN of IN Gateway NP s PP operating VVG needs NNS is VBZ wire NN transferred VVN for IN deposit NN into IN Kroger NP s PP operations NNS account VVP for IN investment NN . SENT Likewise RB , , if IN Gateway NP s PP operating VVG costs NNS exceed VV its PP$ available JJ cash NN revenues NNS , , necessary JJ funds NNS are VBP wire NN transferred VVN to TO Gateway NP . SENT However RB , , it PP is VBZ reasonable JJ to TO conclude VV from IN our PP$ review NN of IN the DT record NN that IN at IN least JJS a DT portion NN of IN Gateway NP s PP gross JJ receipts NNS were VBD returned VVN to TO Gateway NP to TO fund VV its PP$ own JJ payroll NN . SENT The DT employer NN participation NN portion NN of IN Stanton NP s PP health NN insurance NN was VBD paid VVN under IN Gateway NP s PP accounting VVG system NN , , and CC Gateway NP reimbursed VVD Kroger NP for IN its PP$ portion NN of IN the DT worker NN s PP compensation NN premium NN . SENT Third NP , , Kroger NP supplied VVD Gateway NP with IN tractors NNS and CC trailers NNS to TO which WDT Gateway NP decals NNS were VBD affixed VVN . SENT However RB , , the DT tractors NNS and CC trailers NNS operated VVN by IN Gateway NP and CC bearing VVG Gateway NP s PP logo NN are VBP titled VVN in IN the DT State NP of IN Illinois NP in IN the DT name NN of IN Gateway NP . SENT Stanton NP testified VVD that IN Kroger NP tractors NNS were VBD not RB driven VVN unless IN a DT Gateway NP unit NN had VHD broken VVN down RP because IN the DT tractor NN is VBZ a DT piece NN of IN equipment NN authorized VVN to TO run VV as IN a DT contract NN carrier NN for IN hire NN such JJ that IN it PP had VHD to TO be VB licensed VVN to TO Gateway NP . SENT The DT executive JJ secretary NN to TO Gateway NP s PP vice NN president NN testified VVD that IN some DT of IN the DT trailers NNS pulled VVN by IN Gateway NP drivers NNS may MD carry VV a DT Kroger NP logo NN because IN a DT company NN with IN common JJ carrier NN authority NN can MD pull VV another DT company NN s PP trailers NNS with IN its PP$ own JJ power NN units NNS . SENT In IN addition NN , , if IN Kroger NP employees NNS worked VVD on IN a DT Gateway NP truck NN , , Kroger NP billed VVD Gateway NP at IN least JJS as IN paper NN charges NNS for IN labor NN time NN of IN the DT Kroger NP employee NN and CC for IN any DT parts NNS used VVD . SENT Record NP pp NP . SENT 1318 CD 19 CD , , 1354 CD . SENT Fourth JJ , , Kroger NP sometimes RB supplied VVD Gateway NP drivers NNS with IN keys NNS to TO the DT Kroger NP stores NNS to TO which WDT they PP made VVD deliveries NNS to TO facilitate VV evening NN or CC after IN hours NNS deliveries NNS . SENT However RB , , when WRB keys NNS to TO Kroger NP stores NNS were VBD given VVN to TO Gateway NP drivers NNS , , they PP were VBD given VVN by IN somebody NN within IN Gateway NP rather RB than IN Kroger NP . SENT Furthermore RB , , the DT facilities NNS have VHP a DT driver NN s PP door NN because IN the DT drivers NNS would MD drop VV or CC unload VV a DT mail NN bag NN , , a DT service NN for IN which WDT Kroger NP paid VVD Gateway NP . SENT Finally RB , , the DT Kroger NP distribution NN manager NN , , together RB with IN the DT manager NN of IN logistics NNS , , created VVN delivery NN schedules NNS and CC determined VVN when WRB groceries NNS were VBD to TO be VB delivered VVN to TO Kroger NP stores NNS . SENT While IN at IN the DT distribution NN center NN , , Gateway NP drivers NNS were VBD directed VVN by IN Kroger NP managers NNS . SENT See VV footnote NN Kroger NP provided VVD directions NNS as IN to TO which WDT stores NNS a DT driver NN was VBD to TO make VV deliveries NNS . SENT However RB , , Gateway NP drivers NNS received VVD supervision NN and CC instructions NNS from IN Gateway NP supervisory JJ personnel NNS . SENT Kroger NP s PP logistical JJ planning NN was VBD for IN its PP$ own JJ benefit NN and CC was VBD the DT same JJ as IN any DT other JJ customer NN of IN a DT trucking NN company NN that WDT would MD need VV to TO coordinate VV deliveries NNS . SENT Gateway NN billed VVD Kroger NP for IN any DT freight NN hauling VVG it PP did VVD for IN Kroger NP . SENT From IN this DT and CC other JJ evidence NN in IN the DT record NN , , we PP conclude VVP that IN although IN there EX is VBZ a DT certain JJ degree NN of IN interconnectedness NN between IN the DT companies NNS , , there EX is VBZ a DT deliberate JJ attempt NN to TO keep VV a DT significant JJ portion NN of IN the DT businesses NNS separate JJ . SENT Kroger NP may MD oversee VV Gateway NP s PP operations NNS , , report VV Gateway NP s PP earnings NNS , , share NN a DT worker NN s PP compensation NN policy NN with IN Gateway NP , , and CC perform VV some DT accounting NN functions NNS for IN Gateway NP , , but CC those DT were VBD the DT exact JJ characteristics NNS of IN interconnectedness NN rejected VVN by IN the DT McQuade NP court NN . SENT Therefore RB , , the DT policy NN concerns NNS articulated VVN by IN the DT McQuade NP court NN are VBP implicated VVN here RB . SENT If IN Kroger NP intends VVZ to TO maintain VV separate JJ corporate JJ entities NNS for IN tax NN or CC other JJ purposes NNS , , then RB it PP should MD not RB be VB permitted VVN to TO disregard VV that DT corporate JJ form NN when WRB it PP is VBZ convenient JJ for IN it PP to TO do VV so RB to TO avoid VV potential JJ liability NN . SENT Equity NP requires VVZ us PP to TO reject VV Kroger NP s PP attempt VVP to TO pierce VV its PP$ veil NN because IN this DT is VBZ the DT precise JJ situation NN the DT McQuade NP court NN intended VVD to TO prevent VV . SENT C LS . SENT Exception NN to TO the DT McQuade NP Holding NP To TO circumvent VV this DT result NN , , Kroger NP claims VVZ that IN the DT circumstances NNS present JJ in IN this DT case NN fall NN within IN an DT exception NN to TO the DT McQuade NP prohibition NN . SENT In IN the DT text NN of IN the DT opinion NN , , the DT McQuade NP court NN stated VVD . SENT Plaintiff NN contends VVZ that IN the DT Court NP of IN Appeals NP decision NN is VBZ erroneous JJ because IN Indiana NP courts NNS disregard VV the DT corporate JJ form NN only RB when WRB it PP has VHZ been VBN used VVN to TO promote VV fraud NN or CC some DT other JJ injustice NN , , and CC therefore RB , , the DT Court NP of IN Appeals NPS should MD not RB have VH permitted VVN defendant NN s PP defensive JJ piercing VVG of IN the DT corporate JJ veil NN . SENT Defendant NN contends VVZ that IN the DT Court NP of IN Appeals NP properly RB applied VVD a DT reverse NN piercing VVG of IN the DT corporate JJ veil NN doctrine NN in IN determining VVG that DT plaintiff NN s PP claim VVP is VBZ barred VVN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1019 CD . SENT A DT footnote NN immediately RB followed VVD , , stating VVG that DT Defendant NN does VVZ not RB claim VV that IN it PP had VHD an DT express JJ or CC implied JJ employment NN contract NN with IN Plaintiff NN . SENT Rather RB , , its PP$ claim NN is VBZ based VVN solely RB upon IN its PP$ interconnectedness NN with IN Mongo NP . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1020 CD n NN . SENT 4 LS . SENT Kroger NP argues VVZ the DT footnote NN left VVD open VV the DT question NN whether IN under IN certain JJ circumstances NNS , , piercing VVG the DT veil NN to TO find VV that IN the DT parent NN corporation NN is VBZ the DT employer NN of IN the DT plaintiff NN could MD be VB appropriate JJ . SENT Kroger NP contends VVZ the DT footnote NN creates VVZ an DT exception NN where WRB an DT implied JJ or CC express JJ employment NN contract NN is VBZ present JJ . SENT Kroger NP alleges VVZ that IN there EX was VBD an DT express JJ contract NN of IN employment NN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP by IN virtue NN of IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN and CC Kroger NP s VVZ 401 CD k NN plan NN . SENT Kroger NP s PP argument NN presupposes VVZ the DT existence NN of IN an DT exception NN to TO the DT McQuade NP holding NN in IN situations NNS where WRB there EX is VBZ a DT contract NN of IN employment NN . SENT It PP is VBZ far RB from IN clear JJ that IN the DT language NN and CC context NN of IN the DT footnote NN creates VVZ such PDT an DT automatic JJ exception NN . SENT Rather RB , , Kroger NP asks VVZ us PP to TO read VV an DT intent NN into IN the DT footnote NN where WRB we PP find VVP none NN . SENT As IN the DT McQuade NP court NN set VVD out RP the DT parties NNS arguments NNS , , it PP mentioned VVD that IN the DT defendant NN had VHD not RB claimed VVN the DT existence NN of IN a DT contractual JJ relationship NN . SENT That DT could MD mean VV the DT analysis NN contained VVN in IN the DT opinion NN might MD have VH been VBN different JJ had VHD there RB been VBN an DT allegation NN of IN a DT contractual JJ relationship NN . SENT it PP could MD also RB merely RB be VB a DT reminder NN that IN it PP would MD not RB specifically RB address VV the DT issue NN of IN an DT employment NN contract NN because IN the DT issue NN was VBD not RB before IN it PP . SENT We PP see VVP no DT indication NN from IN the DT passing VVG reference NN in IN the DT footnote NN that IN our PP$ supreme JJ court NN intended VVN to TO articulate VV a DT blanket NN or CC automatic JJ exception NN to TO its PP$ clear JJ holding NN for IN cases NNS where WRB an DT employment NN contract NN is VBZ involved VVN . SENT In IN those DT cases NNS , , it PP seems VVZ appropriate JJ to TO evaluate VV a DT particular JJ contractual JJ relationship NN carefully RB to TO determine VV whether IN it PP is VBZ sufficient JJ to TO fall VV outside IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT general JJ McQuade NP holding NN preventing VVG parent NN corporations NNS from IN seeking VVG protection NN from IN liability NN by IN piercing VVG their PP$ own JJ corporate JJ veils NNS . SENT Although IN in IN other JJ cases NNS such JJ contractual JJ relationships NNS may MD exist VV to TO create VV an DT exception NN to TO the DT McQuade NP holding NN , , we PP see VVP no DT intent NN by IN our PP$ supreme JJ court NN to TO create VV a DT broad JJ exception NN to TO its PP$ holding NN . SENT This DT is VBZ particularly RB true JJ in IN light NN of IN the DT definitive JJ language NN in IN the DT opinion NN clearly RB rejecting VVG defensive JJ corporate JJ veil NN piercing VVG based VVN on IN public JJ policy NN concerns NNS . SENT Even RB if IN we PP were VBD to TO indulge VV Kroger NP s PP claim VVP that IN there EX is VBZ some DT sort NN of IN exception NN created VVN by IN the DT footnote NN language NN in IN McQuade NP , , we PP do VVP not RB find VV a DT sufficient JJ contractual JJ relationship NN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP to TO fall VV within IN it PP . SENT The DT thrust NN of IN Kroger NP s PP argument NN is VBZ that IN the DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN governing VVG Stanton NP s PP employment NN with IN Gateway NP was VBD a DT contract NN of IN employment NN with IN Kroger NP and CC created VVD an DT express JJ contractual JJ employment NN relationship NN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Reply VV Brief NN p NN . SENT 8 CD . SENT From IN August NP 1989 CD through IN August NP 1994 CD , , a DT labor NN agreement NN was VBD in IN effect NN that WDT had VHD been VBN negotiated VVN by IN Stanton NP s PP union NN , , Teamsters NPS Local NP 627 CD , , with IN Gateway NP . SENT Upon IN the DT expiration NN of IN that DT agreement NN , , Local NP 627 CD chose VVD not RB to TO continue VV operating NN under IN a DT separate JJ agreement NN with IN Gateway NP and CC instead RB decided VVD to TO associate NN Gateway NP members NNS with IN other JJ workers NNS to TO obtain VV more RBR favorable JJ contract NN terms NNS . SENT It PP decided VVD to TO become VV a DT part NN of IN the DT Kroger NP and CC Teamsters NPS Master NP Contract NN that WDT had VHD been VBN negotiated VVN between IN Kroger NP and CC the DT International NP Teamsters NPS Union NP . SENT In IN so RB doing VVG , , Gateway NP accepted VVD the DT same JJ contract NN for IN its PP$ union NN drivers NNS as RB was VBD negotiated VVN for IN Kroger NP union NN drivers NNS with IN certain JJ conditions NNS as IN outlined VVN in IN a DT letter NN from IN Local NP 627 CD . SENT The DT Master NP Contract NP identified VVD The DT Kroger NP Co NP . SENT as IN the DT Employer NN and CC referred VVD to TO the DT Teamsters NPS Kroger NP National NP Negotiating VVG Committee NP representing VVG Local JJ Unions NNS affiliated VVN with IN the DT International NP Brotherhood NP of IN Teamsters NPS and CC Local NP Union NP as IN Union NP . SENT The DT Master NP Contract NP was VBD not RB signed VVN by IN any DT Gateway NP officer NN , , but CC was VBD ratified VVN locally RB . SENT Kroger NP maintains VVZ that IN this DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN created VVD an DT express JJ employment NN contract NN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP . SENT This DT court NN has VHZ stated VVN . SENT The DT general JJ rule NN is VBZ that IN , , in IN order NN to TO be VB found VVN valid JJ and CC enforceable JJ , , an DT employment NN contract NN must MD contain VV four CD terms NNS . SENT 1 LS it PP must MD state VV the DT place NN of IN employment NN . SENT 2 LS it PP must MD state VV the DT period NN of IN employment NN . SENT 3 LS it PP must MD state VV the DT nature NN of IN the DT services NNS the DT employee NN is VBZ to TO render VV . SENT and CC 4 CD it PP must MD state VV the DT compensation NN the DT employee NN was VBD to TO receive VV . SENT Majd NP Pour NP v NN . SENT Basic NP American NP Medical NP , , Inc NP . SENT , , 512 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 435 CD , , 439 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1987 CD . SENT see VV also RB Jones NP v NN . SENT General NP Elec NP . SENT Co NP . SENT , , 87 CD F NN . SENT 3 CD d SYM 209 CD , , 213 CD 7 CD th NN Cir NP . SENT 1996 CD , , cert NN . SENT denied VVD . SENT Kroger NP cites VVZ little JJ authority NN for IN its PP$ declaration NN that IN the DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN constituted VVD an DT employment NN contract NN under IN this DT or CC any DT other JJ definition NN of IN such PDT a DT term NN of IN art NN . SENT The DT primary JJ authority NN Kroger NP does VVZ rely VV upon RP is VBZ Bentz NP v NN . SENT Metal NP Products NPS Co NP . SENT v NN . SENT Stephans NP , , 657 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1245 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1995 CD , , which WDT , , according VVG to TO Kroger NP , , recognizes VVZ an DT employee NN covered VVN by IN collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN as IN party NN to TO an DT at IN will NN employment NN contract NN with IN company NN . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Reply VV Brief NN p NN . SENT 10 CD . SENT Our PP$ review NN of IN that DT case NN does VVZ not RB lead VV us PP to TO the DT same JJ conclusion NN regarding VVG its PP$ definitive JJ statement NN on IN collective JJ bargaining NN agreements NNS . SENT In IN Bentz NP , , the DT court NN held VVN that IN employment NN security NN provisions NNS in IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN did VVD not RB necessarily RB conflict NN with IN the DT employment NN at IN will NN doctrine NN and CC that IN the DT former JJ employee NN was VBD not RB barred VVN from IN pursuing VVG an DT action NN for IN retaliatory JJ discharge NN by IN the DT fact NN he PP was VBD covered VVN by IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN . SENT Bentz NP , , 657 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 1249 CD 50 CD . SENT The DT court NN noted VVD that IN the DT company NN had VHD relied VVN heavily RB on IN Remington NP Freight NP Lines NPS , , Inc NP . SENT v NN . SENT Larkey NP , , 644 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 931 CD , , 939 CD 40 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1994 CD , , in IN which WDT this DT court NN stated VVD that IN it PP recognized VVD the DT distinction NN between IN employees NNS who WP are VBP retained VVN for IN a DT definite JJ duration NN or CC subject JJ to TO contract NN , , and CC employees NNS whose WP$ employment NN is VBZ of IN indefinite JJ duration NN , , and CC may MD terminate VV at IN the DT will NN of IN the DT employer NN for IN any DT reason NN . SENT However RB , , the DT Bentz NP court NN then RB stated VVN that IN filing VVG a DT grievance NN , , the DT remedy NN available JJ to TO the DT employee NN under IN the DT terms NNS of IN the DT Collective JJ Bargaining NN Agreement NN , , is VBZ not RB the DT same JJ as IN obtaining VVG relief NN under IN a DT breach NN of IN contract NN action NN , , which WDT is VBZ the DT actionable JJ claim NN of IN a DT wrongfully RB discharged VVN employee NN under IN a DT contract NN for IN a DT definite JJ term NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 1249 CD . SENT This DT case NN holds VVZ that IN the DT existence NN of IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN does VVZ not RB preclude VV the DT existence NN of IN an DT employment NN at IN will NN relationship NN between IN the DT employer NN and CC the DT employee NN . SENT It PP does VVZ not RB stand VV for IN the DT definitive JJ proposition NN that IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN creates VVZ an DT employment NN contract NN . SENT Other JJ cases NNS have VHP found VVN that IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN is VBZ not RB an DT employment NN contract NN for IN certain JJ purposes NNS . SENT For IN example NN , , in IN Peake NP v NN . SENT International JJ Harvester NN Co NP . SENT , , 489 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 102 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1986 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVN , , we PP held VVD that IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN between IN a DT former JJ employee NN s PP union NN and CC his PP$ former JJ employer NN was VBD not RB a DT written JJ contract NN within IN the DT statute NN of IN limitation NN exception NN for IN actions NNS arising VVG from IN employment NN agreements NNS not RB in IN writing NN , , and CC thus RB , , the DT statute NN of IN limitation NN applied VVD . SENT We PP rejected VVD the DT plaintiff NN s PP claim VVP that IN the DT terms NNS , , conditions NNS , , and CC privileges NNS of IN his PP$ employment NN were VBD governed VVN by IN the DT written JJ collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN between IN his PP$ union NN , , the DT U NP . SENT A DT . SENT W NN . SENT , , and CC International NP Harvester NN on IN the DT basis NN that IN it PP was VBD uncontested JJ he PP was VBD an DT hourly JJ employee NN hired VVN under IN an DT oral JJ contract NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 105 CD . SENT In IN so RB holding VVG , , the DT court NN relied VVN on IN International NP Union NP , , U NP . SENT A DT . SENT A DT . SENT A DT . SENT I PP . SENT Workers NNS of IN America NP UAW NP , , AFL NP CIO NP v NN . SENT Hoosier NP Cardinal NP Corp NP . SENT , , 346 CD F NN . SENT 2 CD d SYM 242 CD 7 CD th NN Cir NP . SENT 1965 CD , , aff NN d NN . SENT , , 383 CD U NP . SENT S NP . SENT 696 CD , , 86 CD S NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT 1107 CD . SENT In IN that DT case NN , , the DT U NP . SENT A DT . SENT W NP . SENT sought VVN to TO recover VV vacation NN pay NN for IN the DT company NN s PP employees NNS . SENT Rejecting VVG the DT union NN s PP argument NN that IN a DT twenty CD year NN statute NN of IN limitation NN for IN actions NNS on IN written JJ contracts NNS rather RB than IN Indiana NP s VVZ six CD year NN statute NN regarding VVG accounts NNS and CC contracts NNS not RB in IN writing VVG applied VVN to TO those DT facts NNS , , the DT Seventh NP Circuit NP determined VVD . SENT p NN laintiff VV s PP action NN in IN the DT district NN court NN was VBD based VVN upon IN the DT contract NN of IN employment NN between IN the DT individual JJ employees NNS and CC defendant NN . SENT There EX is VBZ no DT evidence NN or CC contention NN that IN these DT employment NN contracts NNS were VBD ever RB reduced VVN to TO writing VVG . SENT It PP was VBD for IN wages NNS due JJ under IN these DT employment NN contracts NNS that IN the DT present JJ action NN was VBD brought VVN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 245 CD . SENT In IN affirming VVG , , the DT United NP States NPS Supreme NP Court NP reasoned VVD that DT p NN roof NN of IN the DT breach NN and CC of IN the DT measure NN of IN damages NNS , , however RB , , both CC depend VV upon IN proof NN of IN the DT existence NN and CC duration NN of IN separate JJ employment NN contracts NNS between IN the DT employer NN and CC each DT of IN the DT aggrieved VVN employees NNS . SENT Hoosier NP Cardinal NP , , 383 CD U NP . SENT S NP . SENT at IN 706 CD , , 86 CD S NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT at IN 1113 CD . SENT The DT Supreme NP Court NP held VVD that IN although IN the DT provision NN concerning VVG the DT company NN s PP payment NN of IN vacation NN pay NN to TO its PP$ employee NN members NNS was VBD embodied VVN within IN the DT provisions NNS of IN the DT written JJ collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN , , the DT determination NN of IN which WDT statute NN of IN limitation NN applied VVN was VBD to TO be VB determined VVN by IN whether IN each DT employee NN s PP contract NN of IN hiring NN was VBD oral JJ or CC written VVN . SENT Several JJ federal JJ courts NNS have VHP likewise RB concluded VVN that IN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN does VVZ not RB create VV an DT employment NN contract NN . SENT Most RBS importantly RB , , the DT U NP . SENT S NP . SENT Supreme NP Court NP has VHZ held VVN . SENT Collective JJ bargaining NN between IN employer NN and CC the DT representatives NNS of IN a DT unit NN , , usually RB a DT union NN , , results NNS in IN an DT accord NN as RB to TO terms NNS which WDT will MD govern VV hiring VVG and CC work VV and CC pay VV in IN that DT unit NN . SENT The DT result NN is VBZ not RB , , however RB , , a DT contract NN of IN employment NN except IN in IN rare JJ cases NNS . SENT no DT one NN has VHZ a DT job NN by IN reason NN of IN it PP and CC no DT obligation NN to TO any DT individual NN ordinarily RB comes VVZ into IN existence NN from IN it PP alone RB . SENT The DT negotiations NNS between IN union NN and CC management NN result NN in IN what WP often RB has VHZ been VBN called VVN a DT trade NN agreement NN , , rather RB than IN in IN a DT contract NN of IN employment NN . SENT J NP . SENT I PP . SENT Case NP Co NP . SENT v NN . SENT National NP Labor NP Rel NP . SENT Bd NN . SENT , , 321 CD U NP . SENT S NP . SENT 332 CD , , 334 CD 35 CD , , 64 CD S NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT 576 CD , , 579 CD 1944 CD emphasis NN added VVD . SENT In IN Young NP v NN . SENT North NP Drury NP Lane NP Productions NPS , , Inc NP , , 80 CD F NN . SENT 3 CD d SYM 203 CD 7 CD th NN Cir NP . SENT 1996 CD , , the DT Seventh NP Circuit NP noted VVD that IN it PP could MD not RB find VV any DT cases NNS where WRB a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN provided VVD individual JJ guarantees NNS of IN employment NN to TO named VVN employees NNS and CC cited VVD authority NN stating VVG , , A DT labor NN agreement NN is VBZ not RB a DT contract NN of IN employment NN . SENT employees NNS are VBP hired VVN separately RB and CC individually RB , , but CC the DT tenure NN and CC terms NNS of IN their PP$ employment NN once RB in IN the DT unit NN are VBP regulated VVN by IN the DT provisions NNS of IN the DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 206 CD . SENT Similarly RB , , the DT Fifth NP Circuit NP has VHZ stated VVN that DT u NN nlike JJ a DT contract NN of IN employment NN , , ordinarily RB a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN does VVZ not RB create VV an DT employer NN employee NN relationship NN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT It PP neither RB obligates VVZ any DT employee NN to TO perform VV work NN nor CC requires VVZ the DT employer NN to TO provide VV work NN . SENT In IN re IN Continental NP Airlines NPS Corp NP . SENT , , 901 CD F NN . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1259 CD , , 1264 CD 5 CD th NN Cir NP . SENT 1990 CD , , cert NN . SENT denied VVN , , 506 CD U NP . SENT S NP . SENT 828 CD , , 113 CD S NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT 87 CD . SENT Therefore RB , , although IN collective JJ bargaining NN agreements NNS can MD be VB considered VVN contracts NNS relating VVG to TO employment NN , , they PP do VVP not RB necessarily RB create VV a DT contract NN of IN employment NN within IN the DT strict JJ meaning NN of IN the DT term NN . SENT Any DT contractual JJ relationship NN created VVN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP by IN virtue NN of IN the DT Master NP Agreement NP is VBZ not RB the DT sort NN of IN employment NN contract NN that WDT would MD be VB contemplated VVN by IN the DT footnote NN in IN McQuade NP . SENT The DT holding NN and CC strong JJ policy NN language NN of IN McQuade NP clearly RB reject VV a DT corporation NN s PP ability NN to TO pierce VV its PP$ veil NN to TO protect VV itself PP by IN asserting VVG that IN it PP and CC its PP$ subsidiary NN are VBP the DT same JJ employer NN . SENT It PP is VBZ evident JJ from IN the DT unequivocal JJ language NN of IN the DT opinion NN that IN any DT potential JJ exception NN to TO that DT rule NN would MD have VH to TO be VB narrowly RB drawn VVN and CC would MD occur VV only RB under IN very RB limited JJ circumstances NNS . SENT The DT contractual JJ relationship NN created VVN by IN the DT fact NN that IN Stanton NP s PP local JJ union NN combined VVN forces NNS with IN the DT larger JJR Teamsters NPS organization NN to TO secure VV better JJR benefits NNS for IN Gateway NP employees NNS is VBZ not RB the DT sort NN of IN relationship NN for IN which WDT our PP$ supreme JJ court NN would MD contemplate VV an DT exception NN . SENT Rather RB , , if IN any DT exception NN is VBZ suggested VVN by IN the DT express JJ or CC implied JJ employment NN contract NN language NN of IN the DT footnote NN , , it PP would MD be VB limited VVN to TO cases NNS where WRB there EX is VBZ a DT direct JJ employment NN contract NN with IN the DT parent NN corporation NN , , not RB a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN that WDT includes VVZ the DT parent NN corporation NN along IN with IN other JJ employers NNS . SENT To TO hold VV otherwise RB would MD circumvent VV the DT holding NN and CC compelling JJ policy NN arguments NNS articulated VVN in IN McQuade NP because IN a DT parent NN corporation NN could MD avoid VV liability NN by IN piercing VVG the DT corporate JJ veil NN any DT time NN a DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN exists VVZ . SENT Kroger NP also RB contends VVZ that IN Stanton NP had VHD a DT contractual JJ relationship NN with IN it PP as IN a DT participant NN in IN the DT Kroger NP 401 CD k NN plan NN K NP Plan NP . SENT The DT K NP Plan NP allows VVZ participation NN as RB follows VVZ . SENT Participating VVG Employers NNS . SENT The DT participating VVG employers NNS of IN the DT Plan NP are VBP referred VVN to TO herein RB as IN Employers NNS and CC are VBP defined VVN as IN the DT Company NN and CC all DT of IN its PP$ subsidiaries NNS and CC any DT other JJ affiliated JJ organization NN which WDT is VBZ a DT member NN of IN the DT same JJ controlled JJ group NN of IN organizations NNS under IN the DT Internal NP Revenue NP Code NP of IN 1986 CD , , as RB amended VVD the DT Code NP as IN the DT Company NN , , which WDT is VBZ authorized VVN by IN the DT Board NP of IN Directors NPS of IN the DT Company NP Board NP to TO adopt VV the DT Plan NP and CC which WDT has VHZ adopted VVN the DT Plan NP and CC Trust NP by IN the DT action NN of IN its PP$ own JJ Board NP of IN Directors NPS . SENT Except IN as RB otherwise RB indicated VVN , , any DT references NNS to TO Kroger NP or CC the DT Company NN relating VVG to TO its PP$ role NN as IN an DT Employer NN under IN the DT Plan NN shall MD be VB deemed VVN to TO include VV any DT other JJ Employers NNS . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 619 CD . SENT The DT parties NNS contest NN the DT interpretation NN of IN this DT language NN . SENT Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN Gateway NP had VHD to TO be VB a DT member NN of IN the DT same JJ controlled JJ group NN as IN Kroger NP pursuant JJ to TO the DT Internal NP Revenue NP Code NP , , which WDT provides VVZ that IN all DT employees NNS of IN all DT corporations NNS that WDT are VBP members NNS of IN a DT controlled VVN group NN of IN corporations NNS shall MD be VB treated VVN as IN employed VVN by IN a DT single JJ employer NN . SENT Stanton NP , , on IN the DT other JJ hand NN , , maintains VVZ that IN Gateway NP was VBD a DT separate JJ participating VVG employer NN under IN the DT K NP Plan NP and CC , , therefore RB , , that IN his PP$ participation NN in IN the DT plan NN was VBD not RB evidence NN that IN he PP was VBD a DT Kroger NP employee NN . SENT Stanton NP s PP position NN is VBZ more RBR consistent JJ with IN the DT plain JJ language NN of IN the DT provision NN . SENT The DT provision NN clearly RB identifies VVZ subsidiaries NNS as IN participating VVG employers NNS and CC as RB separate JJ and CC distinct JJ entities NNS from IN those DT other JJ affiliated JJ organizations NNS that WDT were VBD required VVN to TO be VB part NN of IN the DT controlled JJ group NN . SENT Contrary JJ to TO Kroger NP s PP argument NN , , subsidiaries NNS were VBD not RB required VVN to TO be VB part NN of IN the DT controlled JJ group NN . SENT We PP cannot NN conclude VVP that IN an DT employment NN contract NN was VBD automatically RB created VVN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP by IN the DT fact NN that IN Stanton NP contributed VVD to TO the DT K NP Plan NP when WRB the DT K NP Plan NP is VBZ designed VVN to TO allow VV the DT participation NN of IN other JJ employers NNS , , such JJ as IN Kroger NP subsidiaries NNS . SENT Stanton NP did VVD not RB automatically RB become VV a DT Kroger NP employee NN simply RB because IN his PP$ employer NN , , Gateway NP , , was VBD one CD of IN several JJ participating VVG employers NNS in IN the DT K NP Plan NP . SENT Furthermore RB , , even RB if IN some DT sort NN of IN contractual JJ relationship NN existed VVN between IN Kroger NP and CC Stanton NP by IN virtue NN of IN the DT K NP Plan NP , , it PP is VBZ not RB the DT sort NN of IN direct JJ employment NN contract NN that WDT might MD warrant VV an DT exception NN to TO the DT McQuade NP holding NN . SENT Our PP$ supreme JJ court NN has VHZ expressly RB prohibited VVN the DT precise JJ type NN of IN defensive JJ veil NN piercing VVG Kroger NP is VBZ attempting VVG to TO accomplish VV in IN this DT case NN . SENT We PP find VVP that IN the DT degree NN of IN interconnectedness NN between IN the DT companies NNS is VBZ not RB sufficient JJ to TO justify VV a DT defensive NN piercing VVG here RB . SENT Similarly RB , , we PP find VVP no DT blanket NN exception NN to TO the DT prohibition NN in IN the DT language NN of IN the DT footnote NN for IN employment NN contracts NNS . SENT Even RB if IN such PDT an DT exception NN may MD exist VV under IN limited JJ circumstances NNS , , we PP find VVP that IN the DT collective JJ bargaining NN agreement NN and CC the DT K NP Plan NP do VVP not RB create VV a DT contractual JJ relationship NN sufficient JJ to TO bring VV this DT case NN outside IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT McQuade NP holding NN . SENT Therefore RB , , we PP conclude VVP that IN the DT trial NN court NN properly RB denied VVD Kroger NP s PP motion NN to TO dismiss VV because IN Stanton NP s PP claim VVP is VBZ not RB barred VVN by IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN of IN the DT Act NP . SENT See VV footnote NN II NP . SENT Damages VVZ The DT second JJ challenge NN raised VVN by IN Kroger NP relates VVZ to TO the DT damage NN award NN . SENT Although IN Kroger NP admits VVZ that IN Stanton NP was VBD seriously RB and CC permanently RB injured VVN , , it PP maintains VVZ that IN the DT award NN is VBZ excessive JJ and CC that WDT we PP should MD either RB remit VV it PP or CC remand VV the DT case NN for IN a DT new JJ trial NN on IN damages NNS . SENT Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN the DT verdict NN was VBD motivated VVN by IN passion NN , , prejudice NN , , or CC partiality NN and CC that IN the DT evidence NN does VVZ not RB support VV such PDT a DT large JJ award NN . SENT See VV footnote NN Broadly RB stated VVN , , the DT person NN injured VVN by IN the DT negligence NN of IN another DT is VBZ entitled VVN to TO reasonable JJ compensation NN . SENT Kavanagh NP v NN . SENT Butorac NP , , 140 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT 139 CD , , 144 CD , , 221 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 824 CD , , 828 CD 1966 CD . SENT Courts NNS have VHP said VVN that DT term NN means VVZ such JJ sum NN as RB would MD reasonably RB compensate VV the DT victim NN both CC for IN bodily JJ injuries NNS and CC for IN pain NN and CC suffering NN . SENT Id NP . SENT To TO that DT sum NN is VBZ added VVN past JJ , , present JJ , , and CC future JJ expenses NNS reasonably RB necessary JJ to TO the DT plaintiff NN s PP treatment NN and CC all DT financial JJ losses NNS suffered VVD , , or CC to TO be VB suffered VVN , , as IN a DT result NN of IN the DT inability NN to TO engage VV in IN his PP$ usual JJ occupation NN . SENT Id NP . SENT Compensation NN is VBZ the DT stated JJ goal NN of IN a DT court NN when WRB measuring VVG damages NNS for IN personal JJ injuries NNS . SENT Id NP . SENT citation NN omitted VVD . SENT The DT question NN , , as IN is VBZ so RB frequently RB raised VVN in IN personal JJ injury NN actions NNS , , is VBZ how WRB much JJ money NN reasonably RB compensates VVZ the DT Stantons NP for IN their PP$ injuries NNS and CC pain NN and CC suffering NN . SENT A DT . SENT Standard NP of IN Review NP This DT court NN applies VVZ a DT strict JJ standard NN when WRB reviewing VVG a DT jury NN verdict NN containing VVG a DT damage NN award NN claimed VVD to TO be VB excessive JJ or CC inadequate JJ . SENT Dee NP v NN . SENT Becker NP , , 636 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 176 CD , , 177 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1994 CD . SENT On IN appeal NN , , we PP will MD consider VV only RB the DT evidence NN that WDT supports VVZ the DT award NN together RB with IN the DT reasonable JJ inferences NNS therefrom RB . SENT If IN there EX is VBZ any DT evidence NN to TO support VV the DT amount NN of IN the DT award NN , , even RB if IN it PP is VBZ conflicting JJ , , this DT court NN will MD not RB reverse VV . SENT Traditionally RB , , the DT jury NN has VHZ been VBN afforded VVN a DT great JJ deal NN of IN discretion NN in IN assessing VVG damage NN awards NNS . SENT Sears NP Roebuck NP Co NP . SENT v NN . SENT Manuilov NP , , 2001 CD WL NP 51680 CD Ind NP . SENT 2001 CD . SENT Dollar NP Inn NP v NN . SENT Slone NP , , 695 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 185 CD , , 190 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1998 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT This DT discretion NN is VBZ not RB limitless JJ , , however RB . SENT This DT court NN will MD set VV aside RP an DT award NN of IN compensatory JJ damages NNS as IN impermissibly RB excessive JJ where WRB it PP is VBZ apparent JJ from IN a DT review NN of IN the DT evidence NN that IN the DT amount NN of IN damages NNS is VBZ so RB great JJ it PP cannot NN be VB explained VVN upon IN any DT basis NN other JJ than IN passion NN , , partiality NN , , prejudice NN , , corruption NN , , or CC some DT other JJ improper JJ element NN . SENT To TO warrant VV reversal NN , , the DT award NN must MD appear VV to TO be VB so RB outrageous JJ as RB to TO impress VV the DT Court NN at IN first JJ blush NN with IN its PP$ enormity NN . SENT Kimberlin NP v NN . SENT DeLong NP , , 637 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 121 CD , , 129 CD Ind NP . SENT 1994 CD quoting VVG New NP York NP Cent NN . SENT R SYM . SENT R SYM . SENT Co NP . SENT v NN . SENT Johnson NP , , 234 CD Ind NP . SENT 457 CD , , 127 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 603 CD 1955 CD , , cert NN . SENT denied VVN , , 516 CD U NP . SENT S NP . SENT 829 CD , , 116 CD S NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT 98 CD 1995 CD . SENT Where WRB the DT damage NN award NN is VBZ so RB outrageous JJ as RB to TO indicate VV the DT jury NN was VBD motivated VVN by IN passion NN , , prejudice NN , , partiality NN , , or CC consideration NN of IN improper JJ evidence NN , , we PP will MD find VV the DT award NN excessive JJ . SENT Id NP . SENT The DT jury NN s PP damage NN award NN will MD not RB be VB deemed VVN the DT result NN of IN improper JJ considerations NNS if IN the DT size NN of IN the DT award NN can MD be VB explained VVN on IN any DT reasonable JJ ground NN . SENT Dee NP , , 636 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 178 CD . SENT When WRB the DT evidence NN concerning VVG the DT injury NN and CC damages NNS is VBZ conflicting JJ , , the DT jury NN is VBZ in IN the DT best JJS position NN to TO assess VV the DT damages NNS and CC the DT jury NN s PP verdict NN cannot NN be VB said VVN to TO be VB based VVN upon IN prejudice NN , , passion NN , , partiality NN , , corruption NN , , or CC on IN the DT consideration NN of IN some DT improper JJ element NN . SENT Dollar NP Inn NP , , 695 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 190 CD . SENT Our PP$ supreme JJ court NN has VHZ summarized VVD the DT standard NN as RB follows VVZ . SENT A DT personal JJ injury NN award NN is VBZ not RB excessive JJ where WRB 1 CD the NP award NN was VBD not RB based VVN upon IN jury NN prejudice NN , , partiality NN , , or CC corruption NN , , 2 CD the DT jury NN has VHZ not RB misunderstood VVN or CC misapplied VVN the DT evidence NN , , 3 CD the DT award NN was VBD not RB based VVN upon IN consideration NN of IN an DT improper JJ element NN such JJ as IN liability NN insurance NN , , and CC 4 CD the DT award NN was VBD within IN the DT parameters NNS of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT Under IN such JJ circumstances NNS , , we PP will MD not RB substitute VV our PP$ judgment NN for IN that DT of IN the DT jury NN as RB to TO reasonable JJ compensation NN for IN a DT plaintiff NN . SENT Kimberlin NP , , 637 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 130 CD citation NN omitted VVN . SENT B LS . SENT Method NN of IN Analysis NP With IN this DT standard NN in IN mind NN , , the DT parties NNS dispute VVP the DT method NN of IN evaluating VVG the DT reasonableness NN of IN the DT verdict NN . SENT Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN a DT comparability NN analysis NN is VBZ appropriate JJ whereby WRB we PP would MD compare VV this DT verdict NN to TO similar JJ cases NNS in IN Indiana NP and CC across IN the DT country NN , , particularly RB those DT that WDT are VBP similar JJ with IN respect NN to TO pain NN and CC suffering NN and CC loss NN of IN consortium NN . SENT Kroger NP cites VVZ both DT Indiana NP cases NNS considering VVG punitive JJ damage NN awards NNS and CC Seventh NP Circuit NP cases NNS to TO support VV its PP$ position NN that IN the DT comparability NN approach NN should MD be VB applied VVN in IN this DT case NN . SENT Stanton NP counters NNS that IN Indiana NP does VVZ not RB use VV the DT comparability NN method NN when WRB evaluating VVG compensatory JJ damages NNS and CC that IN each DT verdict NN must MD be VB evaluated VVN individually RB based VVN on IN the DT evidence NN in IN that DT particular JJ case NN . SENT In IN examining VVG the DT question NN of IN the DT proper JJ method NN of IN analysis NN , , we PP have VHP reviewed VVN the DT role NN of IN the DT jury NN in IN awarding VVG compensatory JJ damages NNS . SENT The DT relationship NN between IN judge NN and CC jury NN with IN respect NN to TO compensation NN is VBZ clear JJ . SENT The DT Seventh NP Amendment NP generally RB requires VVZ that IN the DT jury NN determine VV compensatory JJ damages NNS . SENT Supreme NP Court NP doctrine NN , , historical JJ practices NNS prior RB to TO the DT adoption NN of IN the DT Seventh NP Amendment NP , , and CC functional JJ considerations NNS all RB indicate VVP that DT determination NN of IN compensation NN lies VVZ at IN the DT heart NN of IN the DT jury NN s PP constitutional JJ province NN . SENT See VV Colleen NP P NN . SENT Murphy NP , , Determining VVG Compensation NN . SENT The DT Tension NN Between IN Legislative JJ Power NP and CC Jury NP Authority NP , , 74 CD Tex NP . SENT L NP . SENT Rev NP . SENT 345 CD 1995 CD . SENT Moreover RB , , once RB the DT jury NN makes VVZ a DT decision NN about IN compensation NN , , the DT Seventh NP Amendment NP constrains VVZ the DT ability NN of IN the DT judge NN to TO alter VV the DT award NN . SENT The DT role NN of IN the DT jury NN in IN awarding VVG compensatory JJ damages NNS is VBZ clear JJ . SENT However RB , , numerous JJ practical JJ problems NNS arise VVP when WRB a DT jury NN is VBZ actually RB faced VVN with IN calculating VVG and CC awarding VVG damages NNS , , particularly RB in IN areas NNS where WRB the DT damages NNS are VBP not RB easily RB quantified VVN . SENT Damages NNS for IN pain NN and CC suffering NN are VBP one CD such JJ problematic JJ component NN of IN compensatory JJ damages NNS . SENT The DT process NN by IN which WDT pain NN and CC suffering NN damages NNS are VBP awarded VVN in IN the DT United NP States NPS has VHZ been VBN aptly RB called VVN procedurally RB simple JJ but CC analytically RB impenetrable JJ . SENT David NP W NP . SENT Leebron NP , , Final JJ Moments NNS . SENT Damages NNS for IN Pain NP and CC Suffering VVG Prior RB to TO Death NP , , 64 CD N NP . SENT Y NP . SENT U NP . SENT L NP . SENT Rev NP . SENT 256 CD , , 265 CD 1989 CD . SENT One CD author NN described VVD the DT problem NN this DT way NN . SENT An DT inescapable JJ reality NN of IN the DT pain NN and CC suffering NN conundrum NN is VBZ that DT tort NN law NN requires VVZ the DT monetization NN of IN a DT product NN for IN which WDT there EX is VBZ no DT market NN and CC , , therefore RB , , no DT market NN price NN . SENT This DT largely RB explains VVZ the DT lamented VVD fact NN that IN the DT jurors NNS who WP must MD undertake VV the DT monetization NN are VBP given VVN no DT absolute JJ standard NN by IN which WDT to TO do VV it PP . SENT There EX is VBZ none NN to TO give VV them PP . SENT Each DT juror NN must MD create VV or CC bring VV their PP$ own JJ standard NN to TO the DT courtroom NN . SENT Oscar NP G NP . SENT Chase NP , , Helping VVG Jurors NNS Determine VVP Pain NP and CC Suffering VVG Awards NNS , , 23 CD Hofstra NP L NP . SENT Rev NP . SENT 763 CD , , 765 CD 1995 CD . SENT Despite IN the DT difficulties NNS these DT issues NNS pose VVP , , Indiana NP courts NNS have VHP found VVN that IN awards NNS for IN pain NN , , suffering NN , , fright NN , , humiliation NN , , and CC mental JJ anguish NN are VBP particularly RB within IN the DT province NN of IN the DT jury NN because IN they PP involve VVP the DT weighing VVG of IN evidence NN and CC credibility NN of IN witnesses NNS . SENT See VV , , e NN . SENT g NN . SENT , , Landis NP , , 664 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 757 CD . SENT Physical JJ and CC mental JJ pain NN are VBP , , by IN their PP$ very JJ nature NN , , not RB readily RB susceptible JJ to TO quantification NN , , and CC , , therefore RB , , the DT jury NN is VBZ given VVN very RB wide JJ latitude NN in IN determining VVG these DT kinds NNS of IN damages NNS . SENT Id NP . SENT quoting VVG Groves NP v NN . SENT First NP Nat NP l NN Bank NP of IN Valparaiso NP , , 518 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 819 CD , , 831 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1988 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT Damages NNS for IN pain NN and CC suffering NN are VBP of IN necessity NN a DT jury NN question NN that WDT may MD not RB be VB reduced VVN to TO fixed JJ rules NNS and CC mathematical JJ precision NN . SENT Dee NP , , 636 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 178 CD . SENT Where WRB the DT damages NNS cannot NN be VB calculated VVN with IN mathematical JJ certainty NN , , the DT jury NN has VHZ liberal JJ discretion NN in IN assessing VVG damages NNS . SENT Id NN . SENT Our PP$ inability NN to TO look VV into IN the DT minds NNS of IN jurors NNS and CC determine VV how WRB they PP computed VVD an DT award NN is VBZ , , to TO a DT large JJ extent NN , , the DT reason NN behind IN the DT rule NN that IN a DT verdict NN will MD be VB upheld VVN if IN the DT award NN falls VVZ within IN the DT bounds NNS of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT See VV footnote NN Griffin NP v NN . SENT Acker NP , , 659 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 659 CD , , 664 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1995 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT These DT principles NNS , , while IN easily RB stated VVN , , are VBP not RB easily RB applied VVN . SENT The DT appropriate JJ degree NN of IN oversight NN by IN a DT court NN into IN the DT decision NN making VVG process NN of IN the DT jury NN , , especially RB in IN an DT area NN such JJ as IN pain NN and CC suffering NN , , is VBZ not RB an DT easy JJ thing NN to TO determine VV . SENT Affording VVG a DT jury NN the DT discretion NN it PP is VBZ due JJ while IN at IN the DT same JJ time NN making VVG sure JJ the DT verdict NN is VBZ within IN the DT bounds NNS of IN the DT evidence NN can MD sometimes RB be VB a DT difficult JJ balance NN to TO strike VV . SENT Kroger NP urges VVZ us PP to TO apply VV a DT comparability NN analysis NN to TO this DT verdict NN to TO assist VV in IN this DT process NN . SENT In IN essence NN , , Kroger NP maintains VVZ that IN because IN the DT verdict NN in IN this DT case NN is VBZ considerably RB larger JJR than IN those DT in IN purportedly RB similar JJ cases NNS , , it PP could MD not RB be VB found VVN to TO be VB reasonably RB within IN the DT bounds NNS of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT Our PP$ review NN of IN Indiana NP case NN law NN leads VVZ us PP to TO conclude VV that IN Indiana NP has VHZ not RB heretofore RB adopted VVN the DT comparability NN analysis NN for IN evaluating VVG compensatory JJ damage NN awards NNS . SENT One CD Indiana NP case NN mentioned VVD other JJ verdicts NNS in IN evaluating VVG the DT propriety NN of IN a DT compensatory JJ damage NN award NN . SENT See NP Groves NP , , 518 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 819 CD . SENT That DT case NN was VBD a DT quiet JJ title NN action NN in IN which WDT an DT award NN of IN 100 CD , , 000 CD was VBD found VVN to TO be VB excessive JJ on IN the DT basis NN of IN an DT absence NN of IN evidence NN of IN any DT physical JJ or CC psychological JJ manifestation NN of IN mental JJ anguish NN . SENT In IN reaching VVG that DT conclusion NN , , the DT court NN considered VVD a DT Seventh NP Circuit NP case NN , , a DT Northern NP District NP of IN Indiana NP case NN , , and CC a DT Louisiana NP appellate JJ case NN for IN purposes NNS of IN determining VVG the DT extent NN of IN evidence NN required VVN to TO support VV mental JJ anguish NN damages NNS . SENT As IN such JJ , , the DT Groves NP court NN looked VVD to TO other JJ cases NNS for IN guidance NN in IN evaluating VVG a DT particular JJ type NN of IN damages NNS , , those DT being NN for IN mental JJ anguish NN in IN the DT absence NN of IN any DT physical JJ manifestation NN of IN the DT anguish NN . SENT The DT vast JJ majority NN of IN Indiana NP cases NNS simply RB consider VVP whether IN the DT verdict NN was VBD reasonable JJ in IN light NN of IN the DT evidence NN presented VVN at IN trial NN . SENT Indeed RB , , some DT cases NNS have VHP specifically RB stated VVN that IN each DT case NN should MD be VB considered VVN on IN its PP$ own JJ evidence NN . SENT See VV footnote NN For IN example NN , , this DT court NN has VHZ stated VVN that RB e SYM ach NP case NN will MD stand VV and CC fall VV on IN its PP$ own JJ merit NN when WRB an DT award NN is VBZ challenged VVN as IN excessive JJ , , and CC an DT award NN will MD not RB be VB disturbed VVN unless IN it PP is VBZ manifestly RB excessive JJ . SENT Southern NP Indiana NP Gas NP Elec NP . SENT Co NP . SENT v NN . SENT Scoles NP , , 435 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 287 CD , , 294 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1982 CD . SENT see VV also RB Levin NP v NN . SENT Shuckman NP , , 150 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT 254 CD , , 276 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 208 CD 1971 CD . SENT In IN addition NN , , in IN State NP v NN . SENT Thompson NP , , 179 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT 227 CD , , 385 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 198 CD 1979 CD , , the DT State NP s PP contention NN that IN the DT damages NNS were VBD excessive JJ and CC that IN the DT jury NN was VBD motivated VVN by IN prejudice NN , , passion NN , , partiality NN , , or CC corruption NN was VBD based VVN in IN part NN on IN the DT premise NN that IN it PP was VBD the DT largest JJS personal JJ injury NN verdict NN entered VVD to TO date VV in IN Indiana NP . SENT In IN rejecting VVG the DT State NP s PP argument NN , , this DT court NN explained VVD the DT correct JJ way NN to TO determine VV whether IN a DT verdict NN is VBZ excessive JJ was VBD by IN first RB reconsidering VVG the DT evidence NN introduced VVN at IN trial NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 251 CD , , 385 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 214 CD . SENT The DT court NN included VVD a DT passage NN from IN State NP v NN . SENT Daley NP , , 153 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT 330 CD , , 287 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 552 CD , , 556 CD 1972 CD quoting VVG Kavanagh NP v NN . SENT Butorac NP , , 140 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT 139 CD , , 221 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 824 CD 1966 CD , , which WDT stated VVD . SENT For IN a DT formula NN then RB , , our PP$ common JJ law NN sets VVZ only RB the DT general JJ guidelines NNS for IN compensating VVG the DT victim NN , , each DT in IN its PP$ own JJ way NN to TO be VB considered VVN by IN the DT trier NN of IN facts NNS and CC weighed VVD to TO determine VV what WP the DT total JJ compensation NN will MD be VB . SENT Because IN of IN the DT personal JJ nature NN of IN each DT case NN and CC since IN the DT decision NN is VBZ unique JJ to TO the DT particular JJ set NN of IN facts NNS our PP$ courts NNS have VHP said VVN the DT trier NN of IN facts NNS is VBZ to TO be VB given VVN sound JJ discretion NN , , and CC liberal JJ discretion NN where WRB damages NNS cannot NN be VB defined VVN and CC calculated VVN with IN mathematical JJ certainty NN or CC by IN any DT exact JJ standard NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 251 CD , , 385 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 214 CD . SENT Furthermore RB , , in IN Kavanagh NP , , we PP stated VVD . SENT By IN nature NN , , injuries NNS personal JJ to TO the DT individual NN are VBP incapable JJ of IN a DT more RBR definite JJ rule NN for IN measurement NN of IN damages NNS . SENT Each DT action NN is VBZ unique JJ and CC it PP must MD be VB so RB treated VVN and CC determined VVN on IN the DT facts NNS peculiar JJ to TO that DT matter NN . SENT Because IN our PP$ law NN seeks VVZ to TO individualize VV the DT solution NN to TO the DT problem NN of IN properly RB compensating VVG the DT victim NN of IN torts NNS , , no DT overall JJ expedient NN applies VVZ in IN every DT case NN . SENT Kavanagh NP , , 140 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT at IN 145 CD , , 221 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 828 CD . SENT We PP noted VVD that IN the DT appellant NN had VHD documented VVN numerous JJ cases NNS to TO show VV that IN the DT judgment NN in IN question NN far RB exceeded VVD what WP had VHD been VBN allowed VVN in IN Indiana NP and CC elsewhere RB for IN what WP it PP contended VVD were VBD comparable JJ injuries NNS . SENT Yet RB , , we PP concluded VVD that DT w NN e NN are VBP not RB able JJ to TO say VV the DT loss NN of IN an DT eye NN in IN one CD case NN is VBZ worth IN the DT same JJ or CC just RB about IN the DT same JJ in IN another DT case NN . SENT If IN such PDT a DT system NN is VBZ to TO be VB desired VVN and CC we PP express VVP no DT sentiment NN for IN such JJ idea NN it PP must MD come VV from IN legislation NN . SENT Our PP$ common JJ law NN requires VVZ each DT case NN to TO rest VV finally RB on IN its PP$ own JJ merits NNS . SENT Id NP . SENT In IN reaching VVG that DT conclusion NN , , we PP called VVD attention NN to TO language NN of IN the DT Supreme NP Court NP of IN Louisiana NP . SENT C SYM ases NNS relied VVN upon RP may MD be VB similar JJ in IN that WDT each DT of IN them PP involves VVZ a DT similar JJ injury NN such JJ as IN a DT broken JJ arm NN , , the DT loss NN of IN an DT eye NN or CC eyes NNS , , or CC the DT loss NN of IN some DT member NN of IN the DT body NN . SENT Thereafter RB , , however RB , , the DT similarity NN ceases VVZ for IN each DT case NN is VBZ different JJ , , and CC the DT adequacy NN or CC inadequacy NN of IN the DT award NN should MD be VB determined VVN by IN the DT facts NNS and CC circumstances NNS peculiar JJ to TO the DT case NN under IN consideration NN . SENT The DT primary JJ purpose NN of IN the DT judge NN or CC the DT jury NN in IN fixing VVG the DT award NN in IN a DT personal JJ injury NN case NN is VBZ to TO adequately RB compensate VV the DT injured JJ person NN for IN his PP$ injury NN under IN the DT facts NNS shown VVN to TO exist VV in IN his PP$ case NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 146 CD , , 221 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 828 CD quoting VVG Gaspard NP v NN . SENT LeMaire NP , , 245 CD La NP . SENT 239 CD , , 158 CD So RB . SENT 2 CD d SYM 149 CD , , 158 CD 1963 CD . SENT After IN commenting VVG that IN the DT determination NN of IN the DT amount NN was VBD not RB our PP$ decision NN , , we PP cited VVD long JJ standing NN Indiana NP Supreme NP Court NP precedent NN stating VVG , , t NN hat NN the DT jury NN assessed VVD higher JJR damages NNS than IN we PP would MD have VH done VVN , , is VBZ no DT reason NN why WRB we PP should MD set VV aside RP the DT verdict NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 146 CD , , 221 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 829 CD quoting VVG Chenowith NP v NN . SENT Hicks NP , , 5 CD Ind NP . SENT 224 CD , , 226 CD 1854 CD . SENT Our PP$ supreme JJ court NN recently RB confirmed VVD the DT principle NN that IN the DT jury NN has VHZ broad JJ discretion NN in IN determining VVG damage NN awards NNS . SENT Sears NP Roebuck NP , , 2001 CD WL NP 51680 CD , , at IN 7 CD . SENT The DT court NN noted VVD that DT damages NNS are VBP particularly RB a DT jury NN determination NN and CC that IN appellate JJ courts NNS will MD not RB substitute VV their PP$ idea NN of IN a DT proper JJ damage NN award NN for IN that DT of IN the DT jury NN . SENT Id NP . SENT The DT court NN reiterated VVD . SENT Our PP$ inability NN to TO actually RB look VV into IN the DT minds NNS of IN the DT jurors NNS is VBZ , , to TO a DT large JJ extent NN , , the DT reason NN behind IN the DT rule NN that IN we PP will MD not RB reverse VV if IN the DT award NN falls VVZ within IN the DT bounds NNS of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT We PP cannot NN invade VV the DT province NN of IN the DT jury NN to TO decide VV the DT facts NNS and CC cannot NN reverse NN unless IN the DT verdict NN is VBZ clearly RB erroneous JJ . SENT Id NP . SENT quoting VVG Annee NP v NN . SENT State NP , , 256 CD Ind NP . SENT 686 CD , , 271 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 711 CD , , 713 CD 1971 CD . SENT It PP is VBZ clear JJ that IN Indiana NP courts NNS have VHP not RB previously RB adopted VVN a DT comparability NN analysis NN for IN evaluating VVG compensatory JJ damage NN claims NNS . SENT More RBR importantly RB , , they PP have VHP historically RB expressed VVN disfavor NN in IN evaluating VVG cases NNS other JJ than IN on IN their PP$ own JJ merits NNS . SENT That IN being VBG said VVD , , however RB , , the DT obvious JJ concern NN raised VVN on IN the DT face NN of IN this DT verdict NN is VBZ the DT great JJ disparity NN between IN it PP and CC other JJ compensatory JJ damage NN awards NNS in IN Indiana NP cases NNS . SENT We PP recognize VVP that DT variability NN among IN awards NNS is VBZ a DT problem NN primarily RB because IN it PP undermines VVZ the DT legal JJ system NN s PP claim VVP that IN like JJ cases NNS will MD be VB treated VVN alike RB . SENT the DT promise NN of IN equal JJ justice NN under IN law NN is VBZ an DT important JJ justification NN for IN our PP$ legal JJ system NN . SENT Criticisms NNS of IN variability NN include VVP the DT contention NN that IN it PP makes VVZ it PP harder JJR to TO predict VV verdicts NNS and CC , , in IN turn NN , , to TO settle VV cases NNS , , thereby RB adding VVG unnecessary JJ transaction NN costs NNS to TO the DT tort NN system NN and CC delaying VVG payment NN to TO plaintiffs NNS . SENT See VV David NP Baldus NP et CC al NP . SENT , , Improving VVG Judicial NP Oversight NP of IN Jury NP Damages NNS Assessments NNS . SENT A DT Proposal NN for IN the DT Comparative JJ Additur NP Remittitur NP Review NP of IN Awards NNS for IN Nonpecuniary NP Harms NP and CC Punitive JJ Damages NNS , , 80 CD Iowa NP L NP . SENT Rev NP . SENT 1109 CD 1995 CD . SENT Judyth NP W NP . SENT Pendell NP , , Enhancing VVG Juror NN Effectiveness NN . SENT An DT Insurer NN s PP Perspective NP , , 52 CD Law NP Contemp NP . SENT Probs NP . SENT 311 CD 1989 CD . SENT Furthermore RB , , we PP acknowledge VVP that DT inadequate JJ notice NN of IN the DT limits NNS of IN potential JJ liability NN may MD impair VV planning NN for IN risk NN management NN , , resulting VVG in IN the DT overinvestment NN in IN liability NN avoidance NN , , suppression NN of IN innovation NN , , and CC higher JJR insurance NN costs NNS . SENT A DT certain JJ level NN of IN inconsistency NN , , however RB , , is VBZ inherent JJ in IN the DT jury NN system NN and CC is VBZ unlikely JJ to TO be VB eliminated VVN because IN the DT discretion NN exercised VVN by IN juries NNS supports VVZ basic JJ democratic JJ values NNS recognized VVN in IN the DT Seventh NP Amendment NP right NN to TO a DT jury NN trial NN and CC similar JJ provisions NNS in IN most JJS state NN constitutions NNS . SENT See NP Baldus NP , , 80 CD Iowa NP L NP . SENT Rev NP . SENT at IN 1118 CD . SENT As IN that DT article NN points VVZ out RP , , moral JJ diversity NN has VHZ been VBN preferred JJ to TO uniform JJ outcomes NNS imposed VVN by IN rulemaking VVG elites NNS and CC some DT inconsistent JJ awards NNS may MD result VV not RB from IN the DT role NN of IN the DT jury NN , , but CC rather RB may MD simply RB reflect VV superior JJ lawyering VVG purchased VVN in IN a DT free JJ market NN , , or CC the DT luck NN of IN the DT draw NN that WDT is VBZ inherent JJ in IN all DT social JJ institutions NNS . SENT Id NP . SENT As IN one CD author NN observed VVD , , there EX is VBZ . SENT . SENT . SENT no DT standard JJ man NN , , no DT reasonable JJ man NN afoot RB in IN the DT law NN of IN damages NNS . SENT Kalven NP , , The DT Jury NP , , the DT Law NN , , and CC the DT Personal JJ Injury NP Damage NN Award NN , , 19 CD Ohio NP St NP . SENT L NP . SENT J NP . SENT 158 CD , , 160 CD 1958 CD . SENT It PP may MD be VB extremely RB difficult JJ to TO determine VV an DT adequate JJ and CC appropriate JJ amount NN of IN money NN to TO compensate VV an DT injured JJ person NN for IN feelings NNS of IN pain NN and CC suffering NN , , or CC for IN lost VVN biological JJ functioning NN , , professional JJ standing NN , , or CC business NN opportunity NN . SENT Identical JJ injuries NNS may MD have VH radically RB different JJ effects NNS on IN different JJ plaintiffs NNS . SENT Because IN we PP lack VVP the DT ability NN to TO attach VV price NN tags NNS to TO given VVN functions NNS and CC talents NNS , , the DT translation NN of IN social JJ wrongs NNS into IN dollars NNS and CC cents NNS is VBZ problematic JJ at IN best JJS . SENT If IN a DT comparability NN analysis NN is VBZ applied VVN to TO reduce VV awards NNS exceeding VVG the DT range NN of IN purportedly RB similar JJ cases NNS , , the DT effects NNS are VBP far RB reaching VVG . SENT Because IN a DT comparability NN analysis NN effectively RB places VVZ a DT cap NN on IN the DT jury NN s PP award VV regardless RB of IN the DT evidence NN , , it PP can MD be VB considered VVN to TO be VB second JJ guessing VVG jury NN decisions NNS in IN a DT manner NN not RB permitted VVN by IN the DT Seventh NP Amendment NP . SENT Without IN express JJ statutory JJ authority NN , , no DT decisionmaker NN should MD have VH the DT power NN to TO alter VV a DT jury NN s PP award VV without IN regard NN for IN the DT evidence NN . SENT If IN a DT jury NN s PP award NN can MD be VB subject JJ to TO being VBG set VVN aside RP for IN exceeding VVG an DT applicable JJ range NN , , the DT charge NN of IN the DT jury NN to TO fully RB compensate VV the DT plaintiff NN would MD no RB longer RBR be VB paramount JJ . SENT The DT jury NN s PP decision NN on IN the DT amount NN of IN compensation NN would MD be VB replaced VVN with IN a DT figure NN within IN the DT comparable JJ range NN . SENT Although IN the DT jury NN would MD still RB find VV facts NNS and CC calculate VV an DT amount NN that WDT would MD compensate VV the DT plaintiff NN , , it PP is VBZ disingenuous JJ to TO claim VV that IN restricting VVG the DT award NN after IN the DT fact NN by IN comparing VVG it PP to TO other JJ cases NNS would MD not RB change VV the DT functioning NN of IN the DT jury NN by IN effectively RB rendering VVG it PP less RBR of IN a DT final JJ decisionmaker NN and CC more JJR of IN an DT advisory JJ jury NN . SENT The DT comparability NN analysis NN renders VVZ illusory JJ the DT jury NN s PP discretion NN to TO compensate VV a DT victim NN . SENT This DT kind NN of IN encroachment NN on IN the DT traditional JJ exercise NN of IN jury NN discretion NN is VBZ of IN particular JJ concern NN when WRB an DT appellate JJ court NN , , which WDT has VHZ not RB heard VVN the DT evidence NN in IN the DT case NN , , conducts VVZ a DT de NP novo NP review NN that WDT gives VVZ little JJ or CC no DT deference NN to TO the DT ruling NN of IN the DT trial NN court NN or CC the DT verdict NN of IN the DT jury NN . SENT Given VVN the DT uncertainty NN that WDT accompanies VVZ the DT assessment NN of IN compensatory JJ damages NNS not RB fixed VVN by IN legal JJ rule NN , , an DT outright JJ adjustment NN of IN the DT jury NN s PP award VV by IN the DT judge NN would MD simply RB be VB a DT substitution NN of IN the DT judge NN s PP opinion NN for IN that DT of IN the DT jury NN . SENT The DT right NN to TO jury NN determination NN of IN compensatory JJ damages NNS would MD become VV a DT hollow JJ guarantee NN . SENT This DT concern NN is VBZ perhaps RB most RBS salient JJ in IN the DT context NN of IN judicial JJ review NN of IN jury NN awards NNS for IN noneconomic JJ damages NNS because IN a DT jury NN , , applying VVG a DT subjective JJ standard NN of IN measurement NN , , conceivably RB has VHZ a DT better JJR sense NN than IN a DT judge NN in IN determining VVG an DT appropriate JJ amount NN of IN compensation NN . SENT A DT judge NN s PP review VVP of IN a DT jury NN award NN would MD diminish VV the DT significance NN of IN the DT facts NNS of IN the DT case NN that WDT underlay VVD that DT award NN . SENT Furthermore RB , , because IN all DT cases NNS are VBP unique JJ , , the DT search NN for IN comparable JJ or CC similar JJ cases NNS is VBZ inherently RB flawed VVN . SENT The DT nature NN and CC extent NN of IN pain NN and CC suffering NN are VBP seldom RB , , if IN ever RB , , alike RB in IN any DT two CD cases NNS . SENT These DT differences NNS in IN the DT details NNS of IN the DT harms NNS and CC the DT circumstances NNS of IN plaintiffs NNS inevitably RB make VVP a DT comparison NN of IN the DT verdicts NNS difficult JJ if IN not RB impossible JJ . SENT The DT inherently RB subjective JJ basis NN of IN awards NNS for IN pain NN and CC suffering NN confounds VVZ the DT measurement NN and CC quantification NN required VVN for IN an DT accurate JJ comparison NN . SENT There EX simply RB are VBP no DT standards NNS by IN which WDT to TO measure VV the DT effects NNS of IN injuries NNS or CC to TO convert VV them PP into IN dollar NN amounts NNS . SENT Similarly RB , , the DT data NNS currently RB available JJ to TO many JJ courts NNS is VBZ inadequate JJ to TO support VV a DT viable JJ system NN of IN comparative JJ review NN . SENT Another DT problem NN is VBZ that IN the DT reported VVN decisions NNS used VVN as IN comparison NN cases NNS are VBP likely RB unrepresentative JJ of IN all DT damages NNS awards NNS approved VVD by IN courts NNS or CC agreed VVD to TO by IN parties NNS in IN comparable JJ cases NNS . SENT The DT reported VVN facts NNS in IN these DT cases NNS bearing VVG on IN the DT level NN of IN nonpecuniary JJ harm NN are VBP often RB sparse JJ or CC nonexistent JJ . SENT The DT comparison NN of IN cases NNS can MD be VB easily RB manipulated VVN , , particularly RB when WRB the DT factual JJ bases NNS for IN the DT awards NNS in IN those DT cases NNS are VBP frequently RB not RB reported VVN in IN great JJ detail NN . SENT See VV footnote NN Each DT case NN is VBZ normally RB evaluated VVN in IN terms NNS of IN only RB a DT limited JJ number NN of IN characteristics NNS . SENT Because IN of IN the DT uncertainty NN and CC variability NN associated VVN with IN pain NN , , suffering VVG , , and CC loss NN of IN enjoyment NN of IN life NN , , comparing VVG cases NNS on IN that DT basis NN may MD have VH even RB less JJR validity NN than IN comparing VVG for IN other JJ types NNS of IN damages NNS . SENT We PP recognize VVP that IN there EX is VBZ a DT public JJ policy NN concern NN with IN respect NN to TO seemingly RB excessive JJ jury NN verdictsSee NN footnote NN and CC believe VVP that IN verdicts NNS not RB supported VVN by IN the DT evidence NN must MD be VB set VVN aside RB or CC reduced VVD as RB violative JJ of IN the DT law NN . SENT In IN so RB doing VVG , , some DT type NN of IN comparative JJ analysis NN may MD , , under IN certain JJ circumstances NNS , , be VB necessary JJ to TO evaluate VV particular JJ types NNS of IN damages NNS or CC to TO determine VV whether IN the DT size NN of IN a DT particular JJ verdict NN indicates VVZ jury NN passion NN or CC prejudice NN . SENT Although IN it PP may MD be VB tempting JJ to TO engage VV in IN such PDT a DT comparative JJ analysis NN to TO aid VV us PP in IN the DT difficult JJ task NN of IN evaluating VVG such PDT a DT large JJ award NN as RB is VBZ at IN issue NN in IN this DT case NN , , to TO do VV so RB would MD be VB a DT significant JJ departure NN from IN Indiana NP s PP historical JJ regard NN of IN the DT uniqueness NN of IN every DT tort NN claim NN and CC the DT belief NN that IN compensatory JJ damage NN assessments NNS should MD be VB individualized VVN and CC within IN the DT discretion NN of IN the DT factfinder NN . SENT After IN reviewing VVG all DT of IN the DT testimony NN and CC evidence NN presented VVN to TO the DT jury NN , , it PP is VBZ clear JJ to TO us PP that IN such PDT a DT departure NN is VBZ not RB necessary JJ here RB . SENT C LS . SENT Evidence NN in IN this DT Case NN The DT record NN is VBZ replete JJ with IN evidence NN that IN Stanton NP was VBD an DT active JJ person NN before IN the DT accident NN , , heavily RB involved VVN in IN his PP$ community NN and CC outdoor JJ sports NNS . SENT He PP was VBD at IN various JJ times NNS a DT dog NN catcher NN and CC part NN time NN police NN officer NN . SENT He PP coached VVD Little NP League NP and CC was VBD very RB active JJ in IN the DT local JJ Men NP s PP Club NP . SENT He PP coached VVD for IN one CD of IN his PP$ daughters NNS softball NN teams NNS every DT year NN , , including VVG traveling VVG teams NNS and CC All DT Stars NP . SENT He PP took VVD care NN of IN the DT ball NN diamonds NNS for IN the DT community NN . SENT Stanton NP remembers VVZ being VBG hit VVN by IN the DT tractor NN . SENT Well RB , , on IN the DT original JJ hit NN , , I PP felt VVD my PP$ pelvis NN break NN . SENT I PP say VVP my PP$ pelvis NN . SENT I PP really RB don VV t NN know VV what WP bones NNS it PP was VBD . SENT And CC then RB it PP was VBD like IN a DT pause NN and CC it PP started VVD back RB again RB . SENT And CC I PP could MD feel VV it PP crunching VVG , , and CC then RB there EX was VBD another DT pause NN , , and CC it PP started VVD back RB again RB . SENT I PP could MD feel VV my PP$ ribs NNS start VVP breaking VVG . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT I PP felt VVD it PP hit VVD me PP , , and CC then RB I PP felt VVD the DT bones NNS start VVP breaking VVG . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3616 CD . SENT An DT eyewitness NN described VVD it PP this DT way NN . SENT When WRB I PP saw VVD him PP go VVP up RP underneath IN the DT trailer NN , , I PP just RB knew VVD he PP was VBD cut VVN half NN in IN two CD . SENT I PP didn NN t NN think VV he PP d SYM ever RB live JJ over IN this DT ordeal NN . SENT And CC then RB when WRB Ritter NP pushed VVD him PP up RP underneath IN there RB , , Ritter NP had VHD to TO see VV because IN he PP snatched VVD him PP right RB back RB out RB from IN underneath IN it PP . SENT Ritter NP put VVD it PP in IN forward JJ gear NN and CC jerked VVN him PP back RB out RB from IN underneath IN the DT trailer NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2715 CD . SENT The DT initial JJ assessment NN of IN Stanton NP in IN the DT emergency NN room NN revealed VVD that IN he PP suffered VVD an DT open JJ book NN pelvic JJ fracture NN with IN vertical JJ shearing VVG , , hemorrhagic JJ shock NN , , fractured JJ ribs NNS , , hemopneumothorax NN blood NN in IN his PP$ chest NN , , internal JJ bleeding NN from IN the DT pelvic JJ fracture NN , , and CC a DT lung NN contusion NN . SENT He PP was VBD later RBR diagnosed VVN with IN a DT large JJ scrotal JJ hematoma NN , , swelling VVG of IN the DT testicles NNS , , swelling VVG of IN the DT penis NN with IN infection NN , , and CC necrosis NN secondary JJ to TO demodialysis NN . SENT He PP developed VVD a DT foot NN drop NN and CC a DT fungal JJ infection NN in IN the DT area NN of IN the DT injury NN . SENT He PP developed VVD effusion NN fluid NN on IN the DT lungs NNS , , which WDT caused VVD respiratory JJ distress NN syndrome NN and CC required JJ treatment NN with IN a DT ventilator NN . SENT He PP developed VVD several JJ other JJ complications NNS . SENT Anna NP , , one CD of IN the DT Stantons NP daughters NNS , , testified VVD that IN Alfie NP cried VVD the DT whole JJ way NN to TO Indianapolis NP from IN Illinois NP when WRB they PP found VVD out RP about IN the DT accident NN . SENT She PP described VVD her PP$ mother NN as IN being VBG in IN shock NN and CC devastated JJ , , rushing VVG back RB and CC forth RB , , saying VVG we PP had VHD to TO go VV get VV daddy NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3087 CD . SENT Alfie NP testified VVD that IN on IN the DT day NN of IN the DT accident NN , , They PP told VVD us PP that IN there EX was VBD no DT hope NN for IN him PP , , and CC it PP would MD be VB amazing JJ if IN he PP made VVD it PP through IN the DT night NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3452 CD . SENT Another DT one NN of IN the DT Stantons NP daughters NNS , , Lynn NP , , remembered VVD the DT doctors NNS prognosis NN . SENT They PP the DT doctors NNS flat RB said VVD he PP won VVD t NN make VV it PP most RBS likely JJ through IN the DT night NN . SENT He PP said VVD it PP will MD be VB minute JJ by IN minute NN . SENT You PP need VVP to TO stay VV here RB throughout IN the DT night NN , , because IN at IN any DT time NN he PP will MD go VV . SENT We PP don VV t NN expect VVP his PP$ chances NNS he PP doesn NN t NN really RB have VHP any DT chances NNS , , is VBZ what WP they PP pretty RB much RB said VVD . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3108 CD . SENT Lynn NP stated VVD that IN when WRB she PP first RB saw VVD her PP$ father NN . SENT I PP t NN didn NN t NN look VVP like IN him PP . SENT He PP was VBD about RB three CD times NNS as IN big JJ as IN he PP normally RB was VBD . SENT And CC the DT doctors NNS told VVD us PP , , you PP won VVD t NN recognize VV him PP , , and CC we PP thought VVD , , yeah RB , , we PP ll VVZ recognize VV him PP . SENT It PP s VVZ your PP$ dad NN , , you PP know VVP . SENT But CC he PP was VBD really RB swollen JJ . SENT They PP said VVD that IN was VBD from IN all PDT the DT blood NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3108 CD . SENT Their PP$ other JJ daughter NN , , Christy NP , , testified VVD that IN he PP just RB looked VVD horrible JJ . SENT I PP just RB , , you PP know VVP , , started VVD crying VVG . SENT And CC then RB my PP$ mom NN , , you PP know VVP , , she PP was VBD freaking VVG out RP . SENT She PP was VBD , , you PP know VVP , , patting VVG his PP$ head NN , , Jerry NP , , I PP love VVP you PP , , you PP know VVP , , you PP re IN going VVG to TO be VB okay JJ , , you PP know VVP . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3027 CD . SENT It PP was VBD approximately RB a DT month NN before IN he PP was VBD stable JJ . SENT The DT record NN contains VVZ evidence NN that IN Stanton NP had VHD to TO be VB resuscitated VVN numerous JJ times NNS . SENT In IN fact NN , , the DT hospital NN staff NN kept VVD a DT crash NN cart NN right NN outside IN his PP$ hospital NN room NN for IN several JJ days NNS . SENT Lynn NP remembered VVD one CD life NN threatening JJ event NN . SENT One CD of IN his PP$ surgeries NNS actually RB he PP had VHD had VHN a DT 14 CD hour NN surgery NN , , and CC they PP were VBD taking VVG him PP up RP in IN the DT elevator NN , , and CC they PP had VHD actually RB got VVD him PP stuck VVD in IN the DT elevator NN and CC he PP had VHD collapsed VVN . SENT And CC I PP was VBD watching VVG the DT nurse NN literally RB get VV on IN top NN of IN my PP$ dad NN in IN the DT elevator NN , , because IN the DT doors NNS were VBD pried VVN open JJ , , and CC he PP was VBD half RB stuck VVN in IN and CC half NN stuck VVD out RP , , and CC was VBD on RB top JJ of IN him PP trying VVG to TO revive VV him PP . SENT He PP had VHD actually RB died VVN in IN the DT elevator NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3110 CD . SENT Stanton NP was VBD kept VVN in IN an DT induced VVN coma NN for IN considerable JJ period NN of IN time NN . SENT Alfie NP testified VVD that IN when WRB he PP woke VVD up RP , , he PP couldn NN t NN talk NN . SENT That DT was VBD painful JJ , , because IN he PP wanted VVD to TO communicate VV with IN us PP , , but CC he PP couldn NN t NN because IN he PP had VHD the DT trach NN in IN or CC the DT tube NN in IN his PP$ throat NN . SENT And CC you PP could MD tell VV by IN just RB looking VVG at IN him PP that IN he PP was VBD so RB scared VVN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3501 CD . SENT Dr NP . SENT Thomas NP Ambrose NP , , one CD of IN the DT orthopedic JJ surgeons NNS who WP treated VVD Stanton NP , , summarized VVD Stanton NP s PP pelvic JJ injuries NNS as RB follows VVZ . SENT Mr NP . SENT Stanton NP sustained VVD a DT crushing VVG injury NN to TO the DT pelvis NN . SENT This DT is VBZ a DT compression NN of IN the DT pelvic JJ bone NN itself PP with IN multiple JJ fractures NNS through IN both DT iliac JJ wings NNS . SENT The DT iliac JJ wings NNS are VBP the DT bone NN that IN support NN the DT hip NN joint NN . SENT In IN fact NN , , the DT sockets NNS of IN the DT hip NN joint NN were VBD on IN both DT sides NNS fragmented VVN into IN multiple JJ pieces NNS . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2962 CD . SENT He PP further RBR described VVD the DT injury NN . SENT In IN these DT types NNS of IN fracture NN patterns NNS and CC this DT severity NN of IN fracture NN , , the DT chances NNS of IN mortality NN or CC death NN from IN this DT type NN of IN injury NN is VBZ about RB 50 CD percent NN . SENT The DT fact NN that IN he PP survived VVD was VBD probably RB he PP was VBD on IN the DT window NN of IN being VBG crushed VVN to TO death NN , , and CC the DT fracture NN patterns NNS were VBD some RB of IN the DT most RBS severe JJ that IN I PP have VHP seen VVN in IN ten CD years NNS of IN practice NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2965 CD . SENT In IN addition NN to TO the DT fractures NNS , , Stanton NP suffered VVD massive JJ soft JJ tissue NN injuries NNS , , which WDT Dr NP . SENT Ambrose NP described VVD as IN massive JJ crushing VVG of IN both CC the DT muscles NNS around IN the DT bone NN , , as RB well RB as IN avulsion NN or CC pulling VVG away RB of IN the DT skin NN from IN the DT underlying JJ deep JJ fascia NN or CC covering VVG of IN the DT muscles NNS . SENT This DT was VBD , , indeed RB , , a DT significant JJ factor NN in IN his PP$ overall JJ injury NN index NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2966 CD . SENT Stanton NP also RB sustained VVD traumatic JJ injury NN to TO the DT nerves NNS in IN the DT pelvic JJ region NN and CC blood NN vessels NNS in IN that DT area NN . SENT Initially RB , , a DT ten CD hour NN surgery NN was VBD performed VVN . SENT During IN that DT surgery NN , , the DT doctors NNS were VBD successful JJ in IN putting VVG the DT pieces NNS back RB together RB of IN portions NNS of IN the DT left JJ pelvic JJ bones NNS in IN a DT near JJ anatomic JJ position NN using VVG plates NNS and CC screws NNS . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2969 CD . SENT Before IN they PP were VBD able JJ to TO conduct VV another DT surgery NN to TO repair VV the DT right JJ side NN , , however RB , , Stanton NP developed VVD an DT infection NN . SENT Because IN of IN the DT tremendous JJ amount NN of IN muscle NN damage NN at IN the DT time NN of IN the DT injury NN , , countless JJ surgeries NNS were VBD subsequently RB necessary JJ not RB only RB to TO clear VV infection NN but CC also RB to TO remove VV dead JJ muscle NN , , dead JJ skin NN , , and CC dead JJ subcutaneous JJ fat NN , , as RB well RB as IN dead JJ bone NN fragments NNS that WDT were VBD involved VVN in IN the DT infection NN . SENT Record NP pp NP . SENT 2971 CD , , 2979 CD . SENT The DT massive JJ infection NN Stanton NP suffered VVD was VBD life NN threatening VVG and CC caused VVD systemic JJ toxic JJ shock NN , , which WDT resulted VVD in IN complications NNS with IN various JJ organs NNS and CC caused VVN renal JJ failure NN . SENT Dr NP . SENT Ambrose NP explained VVD that IN the DT injury NN to TO the DT hip NN socket NN is VBZ one CD of IN the DT most RBS severe JJ injuries NNS that IN a DT human NN can MD sustain VV . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2983 CD . SENT He PP explained VVD that IN the DT possibility NN of IN developing VVG posttraumatic JJ arthritis NN was VBD substantial JJ with IN a DT reconstruction NN of IN the DT hip NN joint NN , , but CC virtually RB all DT patients NNS who WP suffer VVP displacement NN of IN the DT socket NN and CC have VH no DT surgery NN will MD suffer VV from IN the DT arthritis NN . SENT He PP testified VVD that IN although IN one CD of IN the DT goals NNS of IN surgery NN is VBZ to TO repair VV the DT bone NN so IN the DT patient NN would MD have VH future JJ use NN of IN it PP , , another DT is VBZ to TO reduce VV the DT risks NNS of IN arthritis NN . SENT He PP explained VVD that IN because IN of IN the DT massive JJ infection NN , , Stanton NP s PP prognosis NN with IN respect NN to TO future JJ functional JJ capability NN was VBD not RB promising JJ . SENT As IN a DT result NN , , the DT chances NNS of IN going VVG on IN to TO resume VV virtually RB normal JJ function NN were VBD diminished VVN practically RB to TO zero CD . SENT The DT patient NN lost VVD a DT tremendous JJ amount NN of IN muscle NN around IN the DT hip NN joint NN , , so IN he PP wouldn NN t NN have VHP a DT normal JJ gait NN pattern NN . SENT He PP also RB lost VVD a DT fair JJ amount NN of IN bone NN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT He PP was VBD not RB a DT candidate NN for IN a DT hip NN replacement NN , , in IN my PP$ opinion NN , , because IN of IN the DT involvement NN of IN the DT bone NN around IN the DT hip NN socket NN with IN infection NN . SENT We PP already RB discussed VVD the DT fact NN that IN you PP can MD never RB be VB completely RB sure JJ of IN clearing VVG a DT bone NN infection NN . SENT and CC that IN another DT surgical JJ insult NN to TO that DT bone NN may MD reactivate VV infection NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 2985 CD . SENT Explaining VVG his PP$ ability NN to TO testify VV about IN Stanton NP without IN referring VVG to TO his PP$ notes NNS , , Dr NP . SENT Ambrose NP stated VVD . SENT Everyone NN every DT surgeon NN in IN their PP$ career NN has VHZ several JJ patients NNS that IN they PP that WDT are VBP standouts NNS , , if IN you PP will MD , , that IN you PP remember VVP for IN your PP$ entire JJ career NN and CC into IN retirement NN . SENT And CC there EX are VBP about IN half PDT a DT dozen NN , , all RB of IN them PP having VHG severe JJ crushing VVG type NN injuries NNS to TO the DT pelvis NN , , that WDT are VBP readily RB recalled VVN . SENT And CC Mr NP . SENT Stanton NP is VBZ one CD of IN those DT . SENT Again RB , , the DT magnitude NN of IN the DT injury NN was VBD so RB severe JJ , , and CC his PP$ complications NNS were VBD so RB severe JJ , , and CC we PP cared VVD for IN him PP on IN a DT very RB intensive JJ basis NN over IN a DT period NN of IN several JJ months NNS . SENT You PP re IN absolutely RB right JJ . SENT I PP can MD recall VV this DT patient NN as IN if IN several JJ of IN these DT episodes NNS were VBD just RB a DT few JJ weeks NNS ago RB . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3002 CD . SENT As IN a DT result NN of IN the DT infection NN and CC the DT countless JJ surgeries NNS to TO remove VV dead JJ tissue NN and CC bone NN , , Stanton NP developed VVD a DT very RB large JJ open JJ wound NN near IN one CD of IN his PP$ hips NNS . SENT The DT wound NN was VBD open JJ to TO the DT bone NN and CC required JJ dressing VVG changes NNS several JJ times NNS a DT day NN to TO remove VV the DT drainage NN caused VVN by IN the DT infection NN . SENT Several JJ witnesses NNS testified VVD that IN Alfie NP changed VVD Stanton NP s PP dressings NNS for IN the DT wound NN . SENT Alfie NP testified VVD that IN it PP hurt VVP her PP to TO cause VV her PP$ husband NN pain NN when WRB she PP changed VVD his PP$ dressings NNS . SENT She PP stated VVD that IN she PP generally RB changed VVD the DT dressings NN once IN a DT day NN , , but CC i NNS f SYM it PP was VBD real RB mucky JJ , , smelly JJ , , I PP might MD have VH to TO do VV it PP twice RB a DT day NN or CC three CD times NNS a DT day NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3460 CD . SENT Several JJ people NNS testified VVD that IN the DT dressing VVG changing NN was VBD a DT tedious JJ and CC painful JJ process NN , , complicated VVN by IN the DT foul JJ odor NN and CC debris NN coming VVG from IN the DT wound NN . SENT Anna NP stated VVD , , they PP would MD use VV three CD packages NNS of IN the DT coverall NN and CC a DT Q NP tip NN , , and CC they PP would MD just RB have VH to TO fill VV the DT hole NN in IN . SENT And CC when WRB you PP pulled VVD it PP out RP , , it PP would MD be VB bloody JJ and CC it PP was VBD infected VVN , , so RB it PP was VBD a DT yellow NN . SENT And CC the DT smell NN was VBD just RB hard JJ to TO describe VV . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3091 CD . SENT Christy NP described VVD it PP as RB nasty JJ . SENT There EX was VBD just RB , , you PP know VVP , , stuff VVP coming VVG out RP of IN it PP , , a DT foul JJ odor NN , , and CC , , I PP mean VVP , , Alfie NP wouldn NP t NN think VVP twice RB but CC to TO take VV care NN of IN him PP . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3038 CD . SENT One CD of IN Stanton NP s PP nurses NNS was VBD an DT expert NN in IN wound NN care NN at IN the DT Rehabilitation NP Hospital NP . SENT She PP stated VVD that IN it PP was VBD for IN me PP the DT worst JJS wound NN I PP had VHD ever RB seen VVN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3228 CD . SENT She PP described VVD how WRB painful JJ the DT dressing VVG changes NNS were VBD for IN Stanton NP because IN he PP could MD feel VV them PP and CC explained VVD that IN they PP dressed VVD the DT smaller JJR pressure NN sores NNS before IN treating VVG the DT large JJ wound NN . SENT As IN you PP came VVD back RB up IN his PP$ body NN and CC to TO the DT left JJ side NN . SENT We PP turned VVD him PP over RP on IN the DT right JJ side NN now RB , , the DT whole JJ dressing VVG change NN was VBD very RB painful JJ , , and CC we PP gave VVD him PP medicine NN through IN his PP$ IV NP at IN that DT time NN . SENT Yes UH , , I PP believe VVP it PP was VBD through IN his PP$ IV NP , , because IN any DT changes NNS in IN positioning NN were VBD very RB uncomfortable JJ . SENT We PP turned VVD him PP to TO his PP$ right JJ side NN to TO get VV access NN to TO the DT left NN , , and CC with IN that WDT you PP also RB noticed VVD that IN there EX is VBZ multiple JJ skin NN areas NNS and CC grafts NNS along IN his PP$ flank NN in IN front NN . SENT As IN we PP pulled VVD the DT dressing VVG off RP , , there EX was VBD another DT nurse NN in IN there RB with IN me PP , , and CC I PP don VV t NN it PP was VBD very RB foul JJ smelling VVG . SENT And CC you PP tried VVD to TO keep VV your PP$ dignity NN when WRB you PP re IN with IN a DT patient NN and CC not RB get VV sick JJ or CC anything NN like IN that DT , , but CC I PP know VVP that IN just RB the DT smell NN of IN the DT drainage NN was VBD pretty RB potent JJ . SENT And CC we PP pulled VVD the DT dressing VVG off RP , , and CC we PP were VBD gowned VVN and CC gloved VVN , , and CC just RB kept VVD pulling VVG and CC pulling VVG and CC pulling VVG dressing VVG out RP . SENT And CC you PP just RB it PP had VHD pieces NNS of IN flesh NN on IN it PP , , as RB well RB as IN red JJ and CC yellow JJ drainage NN coming VVG out RP of IN this DT wound NN . SENT And CC part NN of IN the DT assessment NN , , when WRB you PP bring VVP a DT patient NN in IN , , is VBZ to TO measure VV their PP$ wound NN . SENT And CC his PP$ was VBD so RB deep JJ , , I PP could MD almost RB put VV my PP$ fist NN right NN into IN the DT area NN of IN the DT wound NN and CC reach VV around RP . SENT And CC when WRB I PP did VVD , , I PP did VVD touch NN bone NN . SENT And CC that DT was VBD something NN that WDT was VBD not RB a DT very RB good JJ experience NN for IN me PP or CC him PP , , I PP m NN sure RB . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT The DT pictures NNS don VV t NN depict VV the DT depth NN of IN the DT wound NN , , nor CC the DT drainage NN or CC odor NN that WDT did VVD occur VV with IN the DT wound NN either RB . SENT Record NP pp NP . SENT 3226 CD 27 CD . SENT She PP further RBR testified VVD that IN the DT antibiotics NNS he PP was VBD taking VVG caused VVN Stanton NP to TO have VH diarrhea NN several JJ times NNS a DT day NN , , which WDT aggravated VVD their PP$ attempts NNS to TO keep VV the DT wound NN clean JJ because IN he PP could MD not RB use VV a DT bedpan NN . SENT In IN addition NN to TO the DT injuries NNS Stanton NP suffered VVD to TO his PP$ pelvic JJ region NN , , he PP also RB lost VVD vision NN in IN one CD of IN his PP$ eyes NNS as IN a DT result NN of IN the DT trauma NN . SENT With IN this DT condition NN , , the DT eye NN typically RB becomes VVZ unsightly JJ and CC painful JJ as IN it PP begins VVZ to TO deteriorate VV , , so RB Stanton NP may MD need VV surgery NN to TO remove VV the DT eye NN in IN the DT future NN . SENT Because IN only RB one CD eye NN remains VVZ , , the DT risk NN of IN total JJ blindness NN is VBZ higher JJR for IN him PP if IN something NN happens VVZ to TO his PP$ good JJ eye NN . SENT The DT Stantons NP daughters NNS , , as RB well RB as IN the DT doctors NNS , , testified VVD that IN Alfie NP rarely RB left VVD Stanton NP s PP side VVP during IN his PP$ entire JJ seven CD month NN hospital NN stay NN . SENT She PP slept VVD on IN an DT air NN mattress NN in IN the DT intensive JJ care NN unit NN and CC later RBR slept VVD in IN a DT chair NN . SENT She PP left VVD only RB to TO bring VV food NN from IN the DT cafeteria NN and CC to TO shower VV . SENT Lynn NP remembered VVD her PP$ mother NN saying VVG , , A DT s PP long RB as IN he PP s PP here RB , , I PP m NN here RB . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3110 CD . SENT Their PP$ daughters NNS stayed VVD for IN extended JJ periods NNS too RB , , particularly RB Christy NP , , who WP stayed VVD for IN approximately RB two CD months NNS at IN the DT hospital NN away RB from IN her PP$ family NN . SENT Anna NP , , whose WP$ son NN was VBD eight CD years NNS old JJ at IN the DT time NN of IN trial NN , , stated VVN that IN she PP took VVD a DT thirty CD day NN leave NN of IN absence NN from IN her PP$ job NN immediately RB following VVG the DT accident NN and CC that DT later RBR she PP worked VVD four CD ten CD hour NN days NNS per IN week NN in IN Illinois NP so IN she PP could MD spend VV three CD days NNS in IN Indianapolis NP to TO assist VV her PP$ parents NNS while IN Stanton NP remained VVD in IN the DT hospital NN . SENT At IN one CD point NN during IN his PP$ recovery NN , , Stanton NP had VHD breathing NN and CC feeding NN tubes NNS . SENT He PP was VBD receiving VVG daily JJ dialysis NN because IN his PP$ kidneys NNS had VHD failed VVN . SENT When WRB medical JJ personnel NNS had VHD to TO reinsert VV the DT breathing VVG tube NN because IN he PP needed VVD surgery NN , , Lynn NP stated VVD , , he PP didn NNS t NN want VVP it PP . SENT He PP fought VVD it PP , , you PP know VVP . SENT He PP would MD squeeze VV our PP$ hand NN and CC shake VV his PP$ head NN no RB . SENT And CC he PP knew VVD that IN , , you PP know VVP , , they PP were VBD going VVG to TO do VV it PP , , but CC he PP didn NN t NN want VVP it PP . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3113 CD . SENT It PP took VVD four CD to TO six CD weeks NNS of IN physical JJ therapy NN for IN Stanton NP to TO be VB able JJ to TO go VV from IN a DT lying VVG position NN to TO a DT sitting VVG position NN because IN he PP had VHD a DT difficult JJ time NN tolerating VVG it PP . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3321 CD . SENT Alfie NP testified VVD that IN Stanton NP was VBD a DT modest JJ person NN and CC that WDT she PP bathed VVN him PP so IN the DT nurses NNS would MD not RB have VH to TO . SENT She PP stated VVD that IN the DT helplessness NN of IN his PP$ condition NN bothered VVD him PP b NN ecause NN he PP was VBD a DT proud JJ man NN . SENT He PP wasn NN t NN letting VVG , , you PP know VVP , , somebody NN else RB take VV care NN of IN him PP . SENT He PP always RB was VBD the DT one NN who WP took VVD care NN of IN everybody NN else RB , , and CC he PP wasn NN t NN able JJ to TO do VV that IN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3453 CD . SENT Before IN leaving VVG the DT intensive JJ care NN unit NN of IN the DT hospital NN , , Stanton NP vowed VVD he PP would MD return VV one CD year NN later RBR and CC walk VVP onto IN the DT ward NN . SENT Anna NP described VVD the DT one CD year NN anniversary NN this DT way NN . SENT There EX was VBD a DT set NN of IN double JJ doors NNS at IN the DT front NN of IN the DT entrance NN , , and CC he PP wheeled VVN up RP to TO the DT doors NNS . SENT And CC he PP was VBD probably RB eight CD steps NNS from IN the DT nurse NN s PP desk NN , , and CC he PP walked VVD in IN . SENT And CC they PP all RB gathered VVD around IN him PP , , and CC they PP all RB clapped VVD because IN they PP didn NN t NN believe VVP that IN he PP would MD actually RB walk VV back RB there RB . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3093 CD . SENT Although IN he PP was VBD able JJ to TO walk VV short JJ distances NNS with IN a DT walker NN at IN one CD point NN , , it PP became VVD too RB painful JJ for IN him PP to TO do VV so RB after IN another DT bone NN infection NN and CC a DT series NN of IN surgeries NNS in IN 1997 CD . SENT At IN that DT time NN , , the DT top JJ portion NN of IN the DT femur NN the DT ball NN and CC other JJ bone NN from IN his PP$ hip NN was VBD removed VVN . SENT As IN a DT result NN , , one CD of IN his PP$ legs NNS is VBZ several JJ inches NNS shorter JJR than IN the DT other JJ one NN . SENT One CD doctor NN described VVD walking VVG after IN that DT surgery NN as IN having VHG two CD rough JJ bones NNS rub VVP against IN each DT other JJ because IN of IN the DT absence NN of IN ligament NN to TO cushion VV the DT bones NNS . SENT In IN addition NN to TO the DT surgeries NNS Stanton NP underwent VVD on IN his PP$ hips NNS , , he PP also RB had VHD surgery NN for IN a DT penile JJ implant NN . SENT The DT injuries NNS he PP sustained VVD in IN the DT crash NN prevented VVD him PP from IN functioning VVG normally RB , , and CC the DT doctors NNS believed VVD an DT implant NN would MD enable VV him PP to TO engage VV in IN sexual JJ relations NNS again RB with IN Alfie NP . SENT Despite IN his PP$ increased JJ risk NN of IN infection NN due JJ to TO the DT complications NNS he PP suffered VVD from IN his PP$ other JJ surgeries NNS , , Stanton NP elected VVD to TO proceed VV with IN the DT implant NN . SENT In IN all DT likelihood NN , , Stanton NP will MD need VV to TO undergo VV additional JJ surgery NN to TO replace VV the DT implant VV several JJ years NNS from IN now RB . SENT Alfie NP testified VVD that IN she PP and CC Stanton NP had VHD a DT very RB sexual JJ relationship NN before IN the DT accident NN . SENT She PP testified VVD that IN their PP$ physical JJ relationship NN was VBD important JJ to TO both CC of IN them PP . SENT She PP stated VVD that IN unfortunately RB , , although IN Stanton NP had VHD a DT penile JJ implant VV inserted VVN , , they PP have VHP been VBN unable JJ to TO successfully RB have VH intercourse NN because IN they PP have VHP not RB been VBN able JJ to TO find VV a DT position NN that WDT is VBZ comfortable JJ for IN Stanton NP . SENT Stanton NP rarely RB leaves VVZ his PP$ home NN . SENT The DT evidence NN was VBD clear JJ that IN he PP suffers VVZ tremendous JJ pain NN if IN he PP sits VVZ more JJR than IN two CD hours NNS at IN a DT time NN or CC if IN he PP overexerts VVZ himself PP . SENT He PP explained VVD his PP$ neck NN pain NN as RB follows VVZ . SENT That WDT s PP where WRB I PP had VHD one CD of IN those DT big JJ bed NN sores NNS , , and CC all PDT the DT meat NN was VBD gone VVN down RP to TO the DT bone NN just RB about RB . SENT And CC what WP I PP would MD say VV it PP is VBZ , , is VBZ the DT muscles NNS are VBP detached VVN there RB , , and CC they PP will MD kink NN up RB and CC just RB cause VV like IN a DT charley NP horse NN in IN the DT side NN of IN my PP$ neck NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3670 CD . SENT If IN there EX is VBZ dampness NN in IN the DT air NN , , he PP is VBZ in IN constant JJ pain NN . SENT In IN addition NN , , he PP is VBZ not RB able JJ to TO maneuver VV his PP$ large JJ wheelchair NN into IN many JJ locations NNS , , including VVG several JJ rooms NNS of IN his PP$ house NN , , his PP$ neighbors NNS houses NNS , , and CC even RB the DT bedroom NN of IN the DT hotel NN he PP stayed VVD at IN during IN the DT trial NN . SENT He PP is VBZ sometimes RB required VVN to TO use VV freight NN elevators NNS when WRB he PP is VBZ out RB in IN public JJ places NNS . SENT The DT vocational JJ rehabilitation NN counselor NN testified VVD that IN after IN her PP$ evaluation NN and CC testing NN of IN Stanton NP , , she PP concluded VVD he PP is VBZ not RB suitable JJ for IN employment NN because IN of IN the DT totality NN of IN the DT situation NN . SENT . SENT . SENT It PP s PP being JJ in IN a DT wheelchair NN , , no DT sight NN of IN the DT right JJ eye NN , , not RB being VBG able JJ to TO stand VV , , not RB being VBG able JJ to TO sit VV for IN long JJ periods NNS of IN time NN , , limitations NNS that WDT exceed VVP any DT requirements NNS of IN elemental JJ jobs NNS . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3269 CD . SENT Stanton NP has VHZ a DT life NN expectancy NN of IN 25 CD . SENT 4 CD years NNS . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3677 CD . SENT When WRB asked VVN what WP his PP$ expectations NNS are VBP and CC what WP he PP wanted VVD to TO do VV in IN the DT future NN , , Stanton NP responded VVD . SENT I NN d SYM like IN to TO be VB able JJ to TO get VV my PP$ life NN back RB together RB where WRB I PP got VVD my PP$ own JJ choices NNS , , where WRB I PP could MD , , you PP know VVP , , make VVP my PP$ life NN count NN , , have VHP an DT impact NN on IN my PP$ family NN , , the DT community NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3633 CD . SENT In IN responding VVG to TO the DT question NN of IN what WP the DT worst JJS thing NN was VBD about IN his PP$ ordeal NN , , Stanton NP stated VVD , , Watching VVG what WP it PP s VVZ done VVN to TO my PP$ wife NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3633 CD . SENT One CD of IN Stanton NP s PP friends NNS summarized VVD his PP$ future NN this DT way NN . SENT I PP think VVP , , and CC I PP ll RB say VVP this DT since IN he PP isn NN t NN here RB , , his PP$ toughest JJS days NNS are VBP coming VVG . SENT He PP s PP got VVD little JJ grandchildren NNS that IN s PP going VVG to TO grow VV up RP , , and CC it PP s VVZ going VVG to TO be VB very RB hard JJ for IN him PP not RB to TO be VB able JJ to TO do VV the DT things NNS that IN he PP has VHZ done VVN with IN his PP$ children NNS . SENT I PP can MD just RB I PP think VVP he PP s PP going VVG to TO have VH a DT very RB difficult JJ time NN on IN that DT . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3306 CD . SENT Christy NP testified VVD that IN her PP$ father NN lives VVZ day NN to TO day NN because IN of IN the DT pain NN and CC that IN he PP doesn NN t NN know VVP you PP can MD t NN make VV plans NNS with IN him PP because IN he PP doesn NN t NN know VVP if IN he PP s PP going VVG to TO be VB able JJ to TO get VV up RP that DT day NN . SENT There EX is VBZ days NNS where WRB he PP s VVZ just RB hurting VVG really RB bad JJ , , and CC he PP can MD t NN get VV up RP at IN all DT . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3041 CD . SENT The DT devastating JJ infection NN Stanton NP suffered VVD was VBD osteomyelitis NN , , a DT bone NN infection NN , , which WDT is VBZ nearly RB impossible JJ to TO treat VV completely RB and CC continues VVZ to TO be VB harbored VVN in IN the DT bone NN for IN years NNS , , if IN not RB the DT remainder NN of IN the DT patient JJ s NN life NN . SENT There EX always RB remains VVZ a DT risk NN that IN the DT infection NN could MD be VB rekindled VVN at IN some DT point NN in IN the DT future NN , , particularly RB with IN surgery NN . SENT Alfie NP stated VVD that IN in IN spite NN of IN everything NN he PP has VHZ been VBN through RB , , her PP$ husband NN is VBZ still RB pleasant JJ to TO be VB around RP . SENT She PP stated VVD , , I PP mean VVP my PP$ husband NN hasn NN t NN changed VVN in IN that DT , , because IN like IN I PP said VVD , , he PP s PP got VVD his PP$ family NN . SENT He PP s PP got VVD me PP , , you PP know VVP . SENT He PP s PP got VVD friends NNS , , you PP know VVP . SENT He PP doesn NN t NN he PP s VVZ really RB still RB the DT same JJ person NN except IN for IN he PP s PP in IN the DT chair NN and CC he PP s VVZ blind JJ , , you PP know VVP . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3492 CD . SENT However RB , , one CD of IN the DT Stantons NP neighbors NNS described VVD how WRB , , in IN his PP$ view NN , , Stanton NP has VHZ changed VVN as IN a DT result NN of IN the DT accident NN . SENT Well RB , , he PP feels VVZ that IN he PP has VHZ lost VVN the DT ability NN to TO take VV care NN and CC to TO protect VV his PP$ family NN , , and CC that WDT was VBD always RB a DT very RB big JJ issue NN with IN Jerry NP . SENT And CC he PP s VVZ very RB limited JJ in IN what WP he PP can MD do VV . SENT And CC I PP think VVP that DT bothers VVZ him PP because IN he PP was VBD an DT independent JJ person NN and CC did VVD things NNS for IN himself PP . SENT And CC an DT active JJ person NN . SENT I PP know VVP he PP misses VVZ his PP$ hunting NN and CC his PP$ fishing NN . SENT I PP mean VVP , , what WP do VVP you PP want VVP to TO say VV . SENT He PP s PP changed VVD . SENT Record NP pp NP . SENT 3012 CD 13 CD . SENT Before IN the DT accident NN Alfie NP and CC Stanton NP purchased VVD a DT motor NN home NN and CC planned VVD to TO travel VV upon IN Stanton NP s PP retirement NN , , which WDT they PP had VHD anticipated VVN in IN January NP 1999 CD . SENT At IN the DT time NN of IN trial NN , , the DT motor NN home NN was VBD parked VVN in IN the DT backyard NN at IN one CD of IN their PP$ daughters NNS houses NNS . SENT Annie NP testified VVD that IN her PP$ son NN s NN father NN is VBZ not RB involved VVN in IN his PP$ life NN and CC that DT Stanton NP was VBD disappointed VVN that IN he PP could MD no RB longer RB do VV the DT things NNS that IN a DT father NN would MD for IN the DT child NN , , including VVG helping VVG with IN Cub NN Scouts NNS , , fishing NN , , and CC playing VVG ball NN . SENT During IN his PP$ overall JJ stay NN in IN the DT hospital NN , , he PP received VVD approximately RB 150 CD units NNS of IN blood NN , , which WDT represents VVZ his PP$ total JJ blood NN volume NN many JJ times NNS over IN . SENT He PP underwent VVD more JJR than IN fifty CD surgeries NNS and CC multiple JJ episodes NNS of IN resuscitation NN . SENT He PP spent VVD almost RB 300 CD days NNS in IN hospitals NNS . SENT In IN addition NN to TO the DT detailed JJ , , emotional JJ testimony NN , , Stanton NP offered VVD pictures NNS and CC videotapes VVZ into IN evidence NN . SENT The DT pictures NNS demonstrated VVD several JJ things NNS , , including VVG Alfie NP helping VVG him PP up RP , , the DT rooms NNS of IN their PP$ house NN , , and CC Stanton NP s PP inability NN get VV into IN several JJ primary JJ rooms NNS in IN their PP$ house NN . SENT The DT pictures NNS also RB documented VVN the DT progress NN of IN his PP$ open JJ wound NN and CC depicted VVN it PP and CC the DT other JJ scars NNS in IN graphic JJ detail NN . SENT It PP is VBZ clear JJ from IN the DT amount NN of IN the DT verdict NN that IN the DT extensive JJ testimony NN and CC evidence NN had VHD a DT profound JJ effect NN on IN the DT jury NN . SENT We PP conclude VVP that IN it PP adequately RB supports VVZ the DT amount NN of IN damages NNS awarded VVN . SENT See VV footnote NN In IN so RB doing VVG , , we PP reject VVP Kroger NP s PP claims VVZ that IN comments NNS by IN Stanton NP s PP attorney NN during IN closing NN arguments NNS attempted VVD to TO engender VV ill JJ will NN and CC a DT desire NN in IN the DT jury NN to TO punish VV Kroger NP despite IN the DT fact NN that IN Stanton NP had VHD dismissed VVN his PP$ punitive JJ damages NNS claim VVP . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Brief NP p NN . SENT 27 CD . SENT Among IN the DT statements NNS alleged VVN to TO have VH been VBN intended VVN to TO inflame VV passion NN against IN Kroger NP were VBD comments NNS relating VVG to TO Kroger NP s PP being JJ the DT reason NN the DT case NN was VBD at IN trial NN , , to TO the DT jury NN s NN being VBG the DT only JJ thing NN that WDT could MD stop VV Kroger NP from IN running VVG over RP Stanton NP a DT second JJ time NN , , to TO Kroger NP s PP wanting VVG to TO leave VV Stanton NP on IN his PP$ own JJ with IN no DT remedy NN , , and CC to TO Stanton NP s PP forgiveness NN toward IN Ritter NP for IN his PP$ terrible JJ mistake NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3984 CD . SENT Kroger NP claims VVZ there EX is VBZ no DT question NN that IN the DT closing NN argument NN was VBD a DT direct JJ invitation NN to TO the DT jury NN to TO ignore VV the DT law NN and CC punish VV Kroger NP or CC to TO make VV an DT award NN based VVN largely RB on IN sympathy NN . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Brief NP p NN . SENT 28 CD . SENT The DT first JJ problem NN with IN this DT argument NN is VBZ Kroger NP s PP failure NN to TO object VV to TO any DT of IN the DT statements NNS during IN trial NN . SENT Indiana NP law NN is VBZ clear JJ that IN to TO preserve VV statements NNS of IN counsel NN for IN appellate JJ review NN , , the DT opposing VVG party NN must MD promptly RB interpose VV and CC state VV its PP$ objection NN to TO the DT language NN or CC argument NN and CC request VV the DT court NN to TO so RB instruct VV the DT jury NN as RB to TO counteract VV any DT harmful JJ effect NN of IN such JJ language NN or CC argument NN , , and CC if IN granted JJ and CC such JJ instructions NNS were VBD not RB sufficient JJ to TO cure VV the DT error NN , , follow VV such JJ action NN by IN motion NN to TO have VH the DT submission NN set VVN aside RP . SENT Dayton NP Walther NP Corp NP . SENT v NN . SENT Caldwell NP , , 273 CD Ind NP . SENT 191 CD , , 402 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1252 CD 1980 CD finding VVG the DT issue NN waived VVN and CC quoting VVG Gamble NP v NN . SENT Lewis NP , , 227 CD Ind NP . SENT 455 CD , , 85 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 629 CD , , 635 CD 1949 CD as IN stating VVG , , w NN e NN cannot NN permit VVP litigants NNS to TO gamble VV on IN the DT possibility NN of IN a DT favorable JJ verdict NN , , and CC , , after IN an DT adverse JJ verdict NN has VHZ been VBN returned VVN , , set VVD it PP aside RP on IN appeal NN when WRB the DT losing VVG parties NNS failed VVD to TO move VV that IN the DT submission NN be VB set VVN aside RB when WRB the DT alleged JJ error NN occurred VVN . SENT . SENT If IN the DT statements NNS were VBD as RB objectionable JJ as IN Kroger NP now RB claims VVZ , , then RB certainly RB it PP had VHD an DT obligation NN to TO object VV and CC request VV an DT admonishment NN during IN trial NN . SENT The DT second JJ problem NN with IN Kroger NP s PP claim VVP is VBZ that IN there EX is VBZ no DT way NN to TO determine VV whether IN these DT statements NNS alone RB formed VVD the DT basis NN of IN the DT verdict NN against IN Kroger NP . SENT This DT court NN will MD reverse VV a DT judgment NN due JJ to TO improper JJ argument NN of IN counsel NN only RB where WRB it PP appears VVZ from IN the DT entire JJ record NN that IN the DT remarks NNS from IN counsel NN were VBD in IN all DT probability NN , , the DT basis NN for IN securing VVG an DT incorrect JJ verdict NN . SENT Chaiken NP v NN . SENT Eldon NP Emmor NP Co NP . SENT , , 597 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 337 CD , , 345 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1992 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT The DT record NN contains VVZ extensive JJ evidence NN , , including VVG graphic JJ photographs NNS , , of IN Stanton NP s PP massive JJ , , permanent JJ injuries NNS that WDT have VHP prevented VVN any DT sort NN of IN normal JJ life NN for IN him PP and CC his PP$ family NN and CC cause VV him PP constant JJ pain NN . SENT In IN addition NN , , Kroger NP defended VVD itself PP at IN trial NN on IN the DT basis NN that IN Stanton NP was VBD totally RB at IN fault NN for IN the DT accident NN . SENT In IN fact NN , , Kroger NP s PP expert NN insisted VVD that IN Ritter NP was VBD not RB at IN all DT responsible JJ for IN the DT accident NN and CC even RB agreed VVD with IN Stanton NP s PP counsel VV s PP characterization NN of IN Ritter NP as IN being VBG innocent JJ as IN a DT newborn JJ babe NN that IN wasn NN t NN even RB on IN the DT scene NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 3870 CD . SENT In IN light NN of IN the DT testimony NN of IN Kroger NP s PP own VVP supervisor NN , , whose WP$ investigation NN of IN the DT accident NN resulted VVD in IN the DT conclusion NN that IN Ritter NP was VBD at IN fault NN for IN the DT accident NN and CC that DT Stanton NP was VBD partially RB at IN fault NN , , Kroger NP s PP continued VVD insistence NN that IN Ritter NP bore VVD no DT responsibility NN for IN the DT accident NN could MD have VH made VVN a DT particularly RB strong JJ impression NN on IN the DT jury NN . SENT It PP is VBZ not RB feasible JJ in IN a DT case NN such JJ as IN this DT to TO decide VV with IN certainty NN that IN the DT statements NNS during IN closing NN arguments NNS formed VVD the DT basis NN for IN an DT incorrect JJ verdict NN . SENT This DT is VBZ particularly RB true JJ in IN light NN of IN the DT jury NN s PP critical JJ evaluation NN of IN the DT evidence NN resulting VVG in IN a DT finding NN that IN Stanton NP was VBD 20 CD at IN fault NN for IN the DT accident NN . SENT If IN the DT jury NN had VHD done VVN as IN Kroger NP claims NNS and CC acted VVD purely RB to TO punish VV Kroger NP with IN no DT regard NN for IN the DT evidence NN , , it PP would MD not RB have VH sifted VVN through IN the DT expert NN and CC lay VV testimony NN to TO come VV to TO the DT conclusion NN that IN Stanton NP bore VVD a DT quantifiable JJ amount NN of IN responsibility NN for IN the DT accident NN . SENT The DT reduction NN in IN the DT verdict NN to TO reflect VV Stanton NP s PP comparative JJ fault NN indicates VVZ to TO us PP that IN the DT jury NN exercised VVD its PP$ discretion NN to TO evaluate VV and CC weigh VV the DT evidence NN to TO reach VV a DT conclusion NN regarding VVG damages NNS . SENT This DT process NN is VBZ precisely RB the DT function NN that WDT is VBZ within IN the DT heart NN of IN the DT jury NN s PP constitutional JJ province NN . SENT The DT jury NN s PP damage NN award NN will MD not RB be VB deemed VVN the DT result NN of IN improper JJ considerations NNS if IN the DT size NN of IN the DT award NN can MD be VB explained VVN on IN any DT reasonable JJ ground NN . SENT Dee NP , , 636 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 178 CD . SENT The DT record NN is VBZ replete JJ with IN evidence NN of IN devastating JJ injuries NNS , , permanent JJ disabilities NNS , , continuing VVG pain NN and CC suffering NN , , and CC loss NN of IN consortium NN . SENT We PP see VVP no DT indication NN that IN the DT jury NN acted VVD out RP of IN prejudice NN , , passion NN , , or CC partiality NN . SENT Therefore RB , , to TO warrant VV reversal NN , , the DT award NN must MD appear VV to TO be VB so RB outrageous JJ as RB to TO impress VV the DT Court NN at IN first JJ blush NN with IN its PP$ enormity NN . SENT Kimberlin NP , , 637 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 129 CD quoting VVG New NP York NP Central NP Railroad NP Co NP . SENT v NN . SENT Johnson NP , , 234 CD Ind NP . SENT 457 CD , , 127 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 603 CD 1955 CD . SENT Although IN the DT amount NN of IN the DT award NN in IN this DT case NN is VBZ sizeable JJ , , we PP cannot NN conclude VVP that IN it PP is VBZ outrageous JJ given VVN the DT evidence NN . SENT D SYM . SENT Constitutional JJ Implications NNS Kroger NP makes VVZ a DT brief JJ attempt NN to TO argue VV that IN the DT size NN of IN the DT award NN violates VVZ due JJ process NN and CC equal JJ protection NN under IN the DT United NP States NPS Constitution NP and CC due JJ course NN of IN law NN under IN the DT Indiana NP Constitution NP . SENT Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN an DT unfettered JJ right NN to TO a DT jury NN trial NN in IN civil JJ cases NNS does VVZ not RB equate VV to TO the DT unfettered JJ right NN to TO award VV any DT amount NN of IN damages NNS . SENT Kroger NP s PP due JJ process NN and CC due JJ course NN of IN law NN challenges NNS essentially RB amount VVP to TO the DT contention NN that IN because IN the DT award NN was VBD grossly RB excessive JJ , , Kroger NP had VHD no DT notice NN that IN such PDT an DT award NN of IN general JJ damages NNS was VBD even RB remotely RB reasonable JJ or CC possible JJ . SENT Kroger NP claims VVZ existing JJ case NN law NN provided VVD notice NN to TO Kroger NP that IN a DT verdict NN improperly RB focused VVN on IN punishment NN would MD be VB remitted VVN and CC that IN it PP had VHD the DT right NN to TO rely VV on IN existing VVG case NN law NN which WDT showed VVD the DT highest JJS comparable JJ verdicts NNS in IN the DT range NN of IN 3 CD 7 CD . SENT 5 CD million CD . SENT Appellant JJ s PP Brief NP pp NP . SENT 42 CD , , 43 CD . SENT Kroger NP cites VVZ no DT authority NN discussing VVG the DT notice NN issue NN with IN respect NN to TO an DT award NN of IN damages NNS and CC provides VVZ no DT further JJR argument NN developing VVG the DT contention NN . SENT Kroger NP s PP argument NN first RB presupposes VVZ that IN the DT verdict NN is VBZ excessive JJ and CC beyond IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT We PP have VHP already RB concluded VVN that IN the DT verdict NN is VBZ within IN the DT parameters NNS of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT Second RB , , Kroger NP s PP argument NN that IN it PP had VHD no DT notice NN a DT verdict NN this DT high NN was VBD possible RB assumes VVZ that IN the DT comparability NN analysis NN should MD be VB applied VVN in IN this DT case NN to TO compare VV it PP to TO other JJ verdicts NNS in IN cases NNS with IN similar JJ injuries NNS . SENT We PP have VHP already RB declined VVN to TO apply VV a DT comparability NN analysis NN to TO this DT case NN . SENT Even RB if IN we PP had VHD used VVN such PDT an DT analysis NN , , however RB , , Kroger NP was VBD not RB deprived VVN of IN notice NN simply RB because IN this DT verdict NN was VBD higher JJR , , even RB substantially RB higher JJR , , than IN others NNS like IN it PP because IN every DT case NN ultimately RB depends VVZ on IN the DT evidence NN presented VVN in IN that DT particular JJ case NN . SENT A DT verdict NN that WDT is VBZ higher JJR than IN others NNS may MD still RB be VB affirmed VVD under IN a DT comparability NN analysis NN if IN it PP is VBZ deemed VVN to TO be VB reasonable JJ and CC within IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT evidence NN . SENT Indiana NP law NN is VBZ clear JJ that IN a DT tortfeasor NN will MD be VB liable JJ for IN injuries NNS caused VVN by IN its PP$ wrongdoing NN to TO the DT extent NN the DT damages NNS awarded VVN are VBP within IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT evidence NN and CC not RB motivated VVN by IN passion NN , , partiality NN , , prejudice NN , , corruption NN , , or CC some DT other JJ improper JJ element NN . SENT As IN such JJ , , Kroger NP had VHD ample JJ notice NN that IN it PP could MD be VB liable JJ for IN any DT damages NNS found VVD not RB to TO be VB excessive JJ for IN its PP$ wrongdoing NN . SENT Kroger NP also RB makes VVZ the DT broad JJ allegation NN that IN an DT equal JJ protection NN violation NN occurred VVD because IN the DT jury NN treated VVD it PP differently RB than IN it PP would MD have VH treated VVN an DT individual NN . SENT This DT argument NN fails VVZ . SENT First RB , , the DT verdict NN was VBD entered VVN against IN both DT Kroger NP and CC Ritter NP . SENT That DT fact NN hinders VVZ Kroger NP s PP accusation NN that IN the DT jury NN acted VVD more RBR harshly RB than IN it PP would MD have VH if IN Kroger NP were VBD an DT individual NN . SENT If IN there EX is VBZ no DT disparate JJ treatment NN , , then RB there RB can MD be VB no DT basis NN for IN claiming VVG discrimination NN . SENT See VV State NP v NN . SENT Costas NP , , 552 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 459 CD , , 460 CD Ind NP . SENT 1990 CD noting VVG that IN the DT denial NN of IN equal JJ protection NN can MD take VV either RB of IN two CD forms NNS . SENT 1 LS the DT law NN itself PP discriminates VVZ on IN its PP$ face NN against IN a DT protected VVN class NN of IN persons NNS , , or CC 2 CD the DT manner NN in IN which WDT the DT law NN , , which WDT is VBZ otherwise RB constitutional JJ , , is VBZ administered VVN by IN state NN officials NNS discriminates VVZ against IN a DT protected VVN class NN of IN persons NNS . SENT Second RB , , because IN we PP conclude VVP that IN the DT award NN is VBZ within IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT evidence NN , , we PP see VVP no DT merit NN to TO Kroger NP s PP constitutional JJ claims NNS . SENT Conclusion NN The DT trial NN court NN did VVD not RB abuse VV its PP$ discretion NN when WRB it PP denied VVD Kroger NP s PP motion NN to TO dismiss VV for IN lack NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN . SENT Given VVN the DT circumstances NNS in IN this DT case NN , , we PP find VVP no DT basis NN for IN allowing VVG an DT exception NN to TO the DT holding NN by IN our PP$ supreme JJ court NN in IN McQuade NP . SENT The DT trial NN court NN was VBD within IN its PP$ discretion NN to TO conclude VV that IN the DT Stantons NP claims NNS were VBD not RB barred VVN by IN the DT exclusivity NN provision NN of IN the DT Act NP . SENT Furthermore RB , , we PP are VBP unpersuaded VVN that IN the DT jury NN verdict NN in IN this DT case NN is VBZ great JJ enough RB to TO be VB characterized VVN as IN so RB excessive JJ as RB to TO indicate VV prejudice NN . SENT We PP cannot NN say VVP as IN a DT matter NN of IN law NN that IN the DT suffering NN of IN Stanton NP and CC his PP$ wife NN is VBZ worth IN less JJR than IN the DT jury NN s PP award NN , , and CC where WRB there EX is VBZ credible JJ evidence NN to TO sustain VV the DT jury NN s PP discretion NN , , we PP will MD not RB find VV that DT discretion NN abused VVN . SENT Affirmed VVD . SENT BAILEY NN , , J NP . SENT , , and CC RILEY NP , , J NP . SENT , , concur VV . SENT Footnote NN . SENT Indiana NP Code NP Section NP 22 CD 3 CD 6 CD 1 CD b SYM defines VVZ an DT employee NN under IN the DT Act NP as IN every DT person NN , , including VVG a DT minor JJ , , in IN the DT service NN of IN another DT , , under IN any DT contract NN of IN hire NN or CC apprenticeship NN , , written VVN or CC implied VVN , , except IN one PP whose WP$ employment NN is VBZ both DT casual JJ and CC not RB in IN the DT usual JJ course NN of IN the DT trade NN , , business NN , , occupation NN or CC profession NN of IN the DT employer NN . SENT Footnote NN . SENT Similar JJ policy NN concerns NNS were VBD raised VVN by IN Judge NP Kirsch NP in IN his PP$ dissenting JJ opinion NN in IN Nowicki NP v NN . SENT Cannon NP Steel NP Erection NN Co NP . SENT , , 711 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 536 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1999 CD , , trans NP . SENT denied VVD . SENT In IN that DT case NN , , the DT court NN affirmed VVD the DT trial NN court NN s PP findings NNS that IN a DT crane NN operator NN was VBD an DT employee NN of IN a DT construction NN company NN and CC that IN his PP$ claim NN was VBD therefore RB barred VVN by IN the DT Act NP s PP exclusivity NN provision NN . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 544 CD . SENT Judge NP Kirsch NP detailed JJ serious JJ policy NN concerns NNS implicated VVN by IN the DT conclusion NN that IN the DT worker NN s PP claim VVP was VBD barred VVN . SENT He PP wrote VVD in IN part NN . SENT M NP y NP dissent NN is VBZ based VVN on IN public JJ policy NN concerns NNS and CC what WP I PP believe VVP to TO be VB a DT misapplication NN of IN such JJ concerns NNS by IN our PP$ courts NNS . SENT In IN its PP$ opinion NN , , the DT majority NN iterates VVZ the DT oft RB repeated VVN statement NN that IN public JJ policy NN favors VVZ the DT inclusion NN of IN employees NNS within IN the DT scope NN of IN the DT Worker NP s PP Compensation NN Act NN . SENT . SENT . SENT The DT purpose NN underlying VVG this DT policy NN was VBD to TO insure VV that IN workers NNS injured VVN in IN workplace NN accidents NNS in IN the DT course NN of IN their PP$ employment NN would MD receive VV the DT health NN and CC disability NN benefits NNS mandated VVN by IN the DT act NN . SENT The DT purpose NN was VBD not RB to TO immunize VV third JJ party NN tort NN feasors NNS and CC their PP$ liability NN insurers NNS from IN liability NN for IN negligence NN which WDT results VVZ in IN serious JJ injuries NNS to TO one NN who WP is VBZ not RB in IN their PP$ employ NN . SENT And CC yet RB , , that WDT is VBZ the DT result NN of IN the DT application NN of IN the DT foregoing JJ policy NN to TO cases NNS such JJ as IN the DT one NN now RB before IN us PP . SENT It PP is VBZ from IN the DT application NN of IN this DT policy NN that IN the DT burden NN shifted VVD to TO the DT injured JJ employee NN to TO prove VV that IN the DT claim NN falls VVZ outside IN the DT coverage NN of IN the DT act NN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT If IN it PP is VBZ the DT public JJ policy NN of IN this DT state NN to TO allow VV third JJ party NN tort NN feasors NNS and CC their PP$ liability NN insurers NNS to TO use VV the DT Indiana NP Worker NP s PP Compensation NN Act NN as IN a DT shield NN by IN which WDT to TO immunize VV themselves PP from IN liability NN for IN their PP$ wrongful JJ acts NNS resulting VVG in IN serious JJ injuries NNS to TO the DT employee NN of IN another DT , , then RB it PP is VBZ a DT policy NN which WDT should MD be VB re IN examined VVN . SENT I PP would MD not RB apply VV the DT policy NN in IN this DT way NN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 544 CD 45 CD citations NNS omitted VVN . SENT Footnote NN . SENT It PP is VBZ to TO be VB expected VVN that IN Kroger NP would MD control VV the DT traffic NN movement NN on IN its PP$ property NN and CC the DT use NN of IN its PP$ facilities NNS by IN its PP$ own JJ employees NNS , , as RB well RB as IN those DT of IN Gateway NP and CC other JJ trucking NN companies NNS . SENT The DT mere JJ conformity NN with IN rules NNS made VVN for IN the DT general NN policing VVG of IN the DT premises NN , , when WRB there EX are VBP a DT number NN of IN separate JJ groups NNS of IN workers NNS on IN the DT premises NNS , , does VVZ not RB mean VV that IN all DT of IN those DT workers NNS are VBP thus RB transformed VVN into IN Kroger NP employees NNS . SENT Footnote NN . SENT Alternatively RB , , Kroger NP contends VVZ that IN Stanton NP was VBD employed VVN by IN both DT Kroger NP and CC Gateway NP and CC or CC that DT Stanton NP was VBD a DT borrowed VVN servant NN . SENT Typically RB , , we PP analyze VVP dual JJ employment NN by IN applying VVG the DT seven CD factors NNS reiterated VVD in IN Hale NP v NN . SENT Kemp NP , , 579 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 63 CD , , 67 CD Ind NP . SENT 1991 CD . SENT However RB , , we PP need VVP not RB engage VV in IN such PDT an DT analysis NN in IN this DT case NN . SENT The DT cases NNS applying VVG the DT seven CD factors NNS generally RB do VVP not RB include VV those DT where WRB the DT dual JJ employment NN alleged VVN is VBZ between IN a DT parent NN corporation NN and CC its PP$ subsidiary NN . SENT Because IN our PP$ supreme JJ court NN in IN McQuade NP foreclosed VVD the DT ability NN of IN a DT parent NN corporation NN to TO pierce VV the DT corporate JJ veil NN defensively RB as IN Kroger NP is VBZ attempting VVG to TO do VV here RB , , it PP is VBZ dispositive JJ on IN the DT question NN of IN subject JJ matter NN jurisdiction NN in IN this DT case NN . SENT Footnote NN . SENT As IN a DT side NN note NN , , Kroger NP does VVZ not RB contend VV that IN the DT jury NN was VBD improperly RB instructed VVN . SENT In IN fact NN , , Kroger NP recognizes VVZ the DT jury NN was VBD instructed VVN it PP could MD return VV a DT fair JJ amount NN for IN pain NN and CC suffering NN and CC disability NN . SENT Record NN p NN . SENT 1880 CD . SENT A DT jury NN is VBZ presumed VVN to TO have VH followed VVN the DT court NN s PP instructions NNS . SENT Landis NP v NN . SENT Landis NP , , 664 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 754 CD , , 758 CD Ind NP . SENT Ct NP . SENT App NP . SENT 1996 CD . SENT Footnote NN . SENT For IN example NN , , this DT court NN has VHZ stated VVN . SENT We PP must MD confess VV we PP review VV the DT damages NNS for IN emotional JJ distress NN with IN some DT reluctance NN . SENT We PP were VBD not RB , , after IN all DT , , present JJ to TO review VV the DT demeanor NN of IN the DT witnesses NNS as IN they PP recounted VVD the DT events NNS which WDT occurred VVD here RB and CC the DT emotional JJ trauma NN which WDT the DT events NNS induced VVD . SENT we PP are VBP confined VVN to TO review VV of IN a DT record NN which WDT , , no DT matter NN how WRB accurate JJ and CC detailed JJ , , can MD never RB convey VV the DT emotions NNS and CC demeanor NN of IN the DT witnesses NNS . SENT Still RB , , it PP is VBZ our PP$ duty NN to TO insure VV that IN the DT jury NN acted VVD properly RB in IN assessing VVG damages NNS , , and CC we PP may MD not RB shrink VV from IN this DT duty NN . SENT Groves NP , , 518 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM at IN 831 CD . SENT Footnote NN . SENT This DT statement NN also RB holds VVZ true JJ in IN at IN least JJS one CD jurisdiction NN where WRB a DT comparability NN analysis NN has VHZ been VBN used VVN . SENT See VV Wheat NP v NN . SENT United NP States NPS , , 860 CD F NN . SENT 2 CD d SYM 1256 CD , , 1259 CD 60 CD 5 CD th NN Cir NP . SENT 1988 CD stating VVG that IN damage NN awards NNS in IN analogous JJ cases NNS provide VVP an DT objective JJ frame NN of IN reference NN , , but CC they PP do VVP not RB control VV our PP$ assessment NN of IN individual JJ circumstances NNS . SENT Footnote NN . SENT This DT case NN perfectly RB illustrates VVZ our PP$ concern NN with IN comparing VVG damage NN awards NNS to TO other JJ cases NNS . SENT If IN this DT case NN were VBD written VVN in IN a DT manner NN similar JJ to TO other JJ reported JJ personal JJ injury NN cases NNS , , it PP would MD likely RB merely RB contain VV a DT summary NN of IN Stanton NP s PP injuries NNS , , probably RB consisting VVG of IN something NN to TO the DT effect NN that IN he PP suffered VVD severe JJ injuries NNS including VVG a DT crushed JJ pelvis NN , , underwent VVD multiple JJ surgeries NNS , , and CC had VHD several JJ complications NNS . SENT The DT opinion NN would MD indicate VV that IN he PP is VBZ permanently RB disabled JJ and CC will MD continue VV to TO have VH pain NN and CC complications NNS from IN his PP$ condition NN . SENT However RB , , without IN a DT more RBR thorough JJ description NN of IN the DT injuries NNS , , the DT complications NNS , , the DT effects NNS of IN the DT medical JJ problems NNS on IN his PP$ life NN , , and CC the DT profound JJ devastation NN the DT accident NN has VHZ caused VVN him PP and CC his PP$ family NN , , which WDT we PP undertake VV to TO provide VV later RBR , , it PP would MD be VB impossible JJ for IN any DT other JJ case NN to TO be VB compared VVN accurately RB to TO this DT one NN . SENT Footnote NN . SENT Interestingly RB , , a DT recently RB released VVN U NP . SENT S NP . SENT Department NP of IN Justice NP survey NN basically RB nullifies VVZ the DT long RB espoused VVN notion NN that WDT lay VVD people NNS layer NN on IN unnecessary JJ damages NNS in IN civil JJ litigation NN cases NNS . SENT Denise NP G NP . SENT Callahan NP , , Judges NP Just RB As RB Generous JJ As IN Juries NNS , , Indiana NP Lawyer NP , , Jan NP . SENT 17 CD 30 CD , , 2001 CD , , at IN 1 CD . SENT The DT survey NN studied VVD 45 CD of IN the DT country NN s VVZ largest JJS counties NNS , , including VVG Marion NP County NP , , Indiana NP , , and CC concluded VVD that DT judges NNS favored VVD plaintiffs NNS more RBR often RB than IN juries NNS in IN tort NN cases NNS and CC that IN the DT judges NNS awarded VVD slightly RB higher JJR damages NNS than IN juries NNS overall JJ . SENT Id NP . SENT at IN 27 CD . SENT Footnote NN . SENT With IN respect NN to TO Kroger NP s PP challenge VVP to TO the DT evidence NN presented VVN for IN future JJ medical JJ expenses NNS , , the DT jury NN completed VVD a DT summary NN form NN , , so IN there EX is VBZ no DT way NN to TO know VV how WRB much RB of IN the DT total JJ award NN , , if IN any DT , , the DT jury NN allocated VVN for IN future JJ medical JJ expenses NNS . SENT However RB , , we PP conclude VVP that IN the DT evidence NN is VBZ sufficient JJ to TO support VV a DT significant JJ award NN for IN future JJ expenses NNS based VVN on IN the DT testimony NN regarding VVG the DT treatment NN he PP will MD likely RB face VV in IN the DT future NN for IN his PP$ hip NN , , his PP$ penile JJ implant NN , , his PP$ eye NN , , and CC further JJR complications NNS caused VVN by IN his PP$ bone NN infection NN . SENT On IN appeal NN , , any DT uncertainty NN as RB to TO the DT exact JJ amount NN of IN damages NNS is VBZ resolved VVN against IN the DT wrongdoer NN . SENT City NP of IN Fort NP Wayne NP v NN . SENT Capehart NP Farnsworth NP Corp NP . SENT , , 127 CD Ind NP . SENT App NP . SENT 412 CD , , 424 CD , , 142 CD N NP . SENT E SYM . SENT 2 CD d SYM 442 CD , , 448 CD 1957 CD citations NNS omitted VVN , , recites VVZ the DT rule NN . SENT It PP was VBD the DT tortious JJ act NN of IN appellant NN which WDT created VVD this DT situation NN and CC all DT doubts NNS and CC uncertainties NNS as RB to TO the DT proof NN of IN the DT exact JJ measure NN of IN damages NNS must MD be VB resolved VVN against IN it PP . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT A DT ny NP other JJ rule NN would MD enable VV the DT wrongdoer NN to TO profit VV by IN his PP$ wrongdoing NN at IN the DT expense NN of IN his PP$ victim NN . SENT . SENT . SENT The DT most RBS elementary JJ conceptions NNS of IN justice NN and CC public JJ policy NN require VVP that IN the DT wrongdoer NN shall MD bear VV the DT risk NN of IN the DT uncertainty NN which WDT his PP$ own JJ wrong NN has VHZ created VVN . SENT . SENT . SENT . SENT