INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court is considering how to balance the discovery of cell phone information with privacy rights following a hearing Thursday where a car accident victim wanted access to the phone data of the driver who struck him.
The victim, Charles Jennings, argued a lower trial court abused its discretion when prohibiting him from inspecting the phone data.
During Thursday’s oral argument, a lawyer for Jennings said the exclusion of the requested evidence could have impacted the trial. Jennings sought phone data showing whether the driver was using the navigation app “Waze” during the accident.
A lawyer for the driver, Jessica Smiley, said allowing the man to access her unlocked phone posed overwhelming privacy concerns. “A smartphone contains far more information than a personal diary,” said attorney Bob Durham.
Smiley was driving in Carmel in December 2019 when she struck Jennings, who was walking across the street at the time of the accident. According to an Indiana Court of Appeals opinion, Jennings had stepped into the street from behind a box truck, which had blocked Smiley’s view of him. Jennings sued Smiley in February 2020, arguing she had been “negligent” while driving. In her answer to Jennings’ complaint, Smiley claimed Jennings had been “contributorily negligent.”
A year later, Jennings moved to compel discovery of Smiley’s cellphone data, seeking to find out if she was using Waze at the time of the accident. Smiley had previously said in a deposition that she had been using the app when she first started her drive but was not using it during the accident.
Although the trial court initially granted Jennings’ motion, Smiley asked the court to reconsider due to privacy concerns. In September 2021 the trial court overrode its prior decision and denied the motion to compel.
In January 2023 a jury found Jennings had been 90% at fault and Smiley had been 10% at fault for the accident after experts testified Jennings had not crossed at an intersection or crosswalk, and that there was limited evidence Smiley was distracted or driving recklessly. The trial court ruled in Smiley’s favor and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
Read the complete Mia Hilkowitz story for the Indiana Capital Chronicle, here.
