Crone, J.
Case Summary
Hetty Incorporated (Hetty) appeals the small claims court’s judgment in favor of Alex Weems. We affirm.
….
Citing Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, Hetty asserts that the trial court committed reversible error by allowing Weems to raise a nonparty defense without requiring him to “specifically identify and name” the nonparty. Appellant’s Br. at 6. Hetty contends that Weems lost control of his car and hit the fence and building, which are stationary objects to which no fault may be attributed. As such, Hetty maintains that fault for the collision rests solely with Weems.
Pursuant to Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, in a suit for recovery of harm to property, “a defendant may assert as a defense that the damages of the claimant were caused in full or in part by a nonparty.” Ind. Code §§ 34-51-2-1, -14. Generally, a defendant must “affirmatively plead” a nonparty defense. Ind Code § 34-51-2-15; see also Ind. Code § 34-51-2-16 (outlining when nonparty defense must be pleaded). However, Indiana Small Claims Rule 4(A), entitled, “Preservation of Defenses,” provides that “[a]ll defenses shall be deemed at issue without responsive pleadings, but this provision shall not alter the burden of proof.” (Emphasis added). The claimant retains the “burden of proving that fault on the part of the defendant or defendants caused, in whole or in part, the damages of the claimant.” Ind. Code § 34-51-2-15. It is well settled that the allocation of fault is entrusted to the factfinder’s sound judgment. N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Josh’s Lawn & Snow, LLC, 130 N.E.3d 1191, 1194 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Because the present case was brought as a small claims matter, Weems was not required to formally plead a nonparty defense. See Wells v. Trinity Universal Ins. Co., 655 N.E.2d 514, 515 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (concluding that defendants in small claims action “were not required to plead a non-party defense. See S.C.R. 4(A).”). Thus, it was sufficient for Weems to contend at the hearing that his car lost control because it was hit by a van. Hetty is correct that Weems did not know who was driving the van at the time of the collision. However, Weems did provide the names of the van’s owners and explained that his car’s camera had captured an image of the van’s license plate, which he gave to police and to his insurance company. Although the testimony is sparse, it appears that between Weems’s insurance and the Fowlers’ insurance, Weems received an insurance payout check for his car. [Footnote omitted.]
The trial court heard Weems’s nonparty defense and ultimately determined that Hetty did not meet its burden of proof…
….
Affirmed.
Bradford, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.