In the State of Indiana, “pain and suffering” is a legal term of art used to describe the non-economic damages a plaintiff may recover following a personal injury, such as a motorcycle accident. Unlike economic damages (medical bills, lost wages), these represent the intangible, human cost of an injury.
Under Indiana law, there is generally no statutory cap on non-economic damages in standard personal injury cases involving private parties. However, caps do apply in specific contexts, such as medical malpractice ($1.8 million) or claims against governmental entities ($700,000). It is important to define Pain and Suffering in the State of Indiana where the Indiana courts divide pain and suffering into two distinct categories: physical and mental/emotional.
Physical Pain and Suffering:
This includes the actual bodily distress felt at the time of the motorcycle accident and throughout the recovery process.
Past and Future Pain: Plaintiffs can recover for pain already endured and for “permanent” pain that medical experts testify will continue for the rest of the plaintiff’s life.
Disfigurement and Scarring: Because motorcycle accidents often involve “road rash,” burns, or amputations, Indiana law allows specific recovery for the humiliation and trauma associated with permanent changes to one’s physical appearance.
Mental and Emotional Suffering:
Indiana recognizes that the trauma of a crash extends beyond the flesh. This includes:
Emotional Distress: Anxiety, depression, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which are common for riders returning to the road.
Loss of Enjoyment of Life: This compensates a plaintiff for the inability to participate in hobbies or daily activities they enjoyed before the accident (e.g., an avid rider who can no longer operate a motorcycle due to a leg injury).
Fear and Humiliation: The “shock” of the impact and the ongoing embarrassment of relying on others for basic care.
Further, the Indiana Case Law & Standards are important to understand. Indiana courts provide juries with “wide latitude” in determining the value of pain and suffering because, as the Indiana Court of Appeals noted, there is “no market price” for human suffering.
The “Manifestly Excessive” Standard: In Kroger Co. v. Pollock (2001), the Court of Appeals affirmed that a jury’s award for non-economic damages will not be disturbed unless it is “manifestly excessive” or “so outrageous as to indicate the jury was motivated by passion, partiality, prejudice, or corruption.”
The Impact Rule: Historically, Indiana followed a strict “Impact Rule,” requiring a physical impact to recover for emotional distress. While this has been modified by the “Bystander Rule” (allowing recovery for those who witness a loved one’s injury), in a direct motorcycle accident claim, the physical collision itself satisfies the impact requirement, opening the door for full emotional distress damages.
Requirement of Evidence: While subjective, these damages must be rooted in evidence. In Ritter v. Stanton (2001), the court upheld a significant award because it was supported by testimony regarding the plaintiff’s lifestyle changes and ongoing physical limitations.