Indiana Sup. Ct. on Tort Claims, Immigration Status: Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co.

Escamilla v. Shiel Sexton Co., May 4, 2017 - "Indiana’s tort trials should be about making injured parties whole — not about federal immigration policies and laws. Today we address two important issues of first impression: May an unauthorized immigrant sue for decreased earning capacity damages in a tort action? And if so, is that plaintiff’s unauthorized immigration status admissible at trial?

We first hold that the Indiana Constitution’s Open Courts Clause allows unauthorized immigrants to pursue claims for decreased earning capacity damages. We then provide an evidentiary framework for determining when unauthorized immigration status is admissible. That
framework recognizes that while a plaintiff’s unauthorized immigration status is relevant to decreased earning capacity damages, admitting it would result in a collateral mini-trial on immigration — a mini-trial that brings significant risks of confusing the issues and unfair prejudice. Under Indiana Rule of Evidence 403, these risks will substantially outweigh immigration status’s relevance — making it inadmissible — unless the evidence’s proponent shows by a preponderance that the plaintiff will be deported. Finally, we hold that unaccounted-for contingencies in an expert’s damages calculations are issues for cross-examination, not grounds for exclusion. We therefore reverse the trial court’s contrary rulings and remand for it to apply this framework."