Indiana Appeals

Indiana Supreme Court Defends Modified Impact Rule

In Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Cook, the Indiana Supreme Court defended and reaffirmed Indiana's modified impact rule in claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress.  The Court held, "[i]t our view that the requirements under Indiana’s rule are modest and that a less restrictive rule would raise the potential for a flood of trivial suits, pose the possibility of fraudulent claims that are difficult for judges and juries to detect, and result in unlimited and unpredictable liability. We therefore reaffirm that Indiana’s impact rule continues to require a plaintiff to demonstrate a direct physical impact resulting from the negligence of another."

The Court found that inhaling the cigarette smoke of another and feeling the vibrations of another's stomping feet were not sufficient impact to sustain a claim. 

The Court also upheld its "bystander rule" under which, where the direct impact test is not met, a bystander may nevertheless establish negligent infliction of emotional distress by proving that the plaintiff actually witnessed or came on the scene soon after the death or severe injury of a loved one with a relationship to the plaintiff analogous to a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild or sibling caused by defendant's negligent or otherwise tortious conduct.

When a Trial Court Sets Aside a Verdict Without Giving Reasons the Verdict Should Be Set Aside On Appeal

In Thomas M. Weida v. Donald and Kathy Kegarise the Indiana Supreme Court held that when a trial court sets aside a verdict because it is against the great weight of the evidence the judge must provide details for the reasons behind setting aside the verdict.  If the trial court sets aside a verdict without providing the reasons for doing so, the verdict should be reinstated on appeal.  The Court stated that when the trial court reviews evidence and orders a new trial because the verdict is against the weight of the evidence, the trial court is acting in its role as the thirteenth juror and should "relate the supporting and opposing evidence to each issue upon which the new trial is granted."  (quoting Ind. Trial Rule 59(J)). 

Where the Facts are Undisputed, A Question of Contributory Negligence Becomes a Question of Law

In Howard and Merry Funston v. School Town of Munster, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment in a contributory negligence case. Planitiff Howard Funston sustained personal injuries when he fell off the top row of portable bleachers the school had provided for his son's AAU basketball game. There was no back support for the top row where Funston was sitting, so the Defendant school argued Funston was contributorily negligent as a matter of law. While the court noted that contributory negligence is generally a question of fact and not an appropriate matter for summary judgment, the court explained further that when the facts are undisputed and only a single inference can reasonably be drawn therefrom, the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law. "It was an undisputed fact that Funston leaned backwards before ascertaining whether there was something to lean on, a fact easily visible and one that he had ample opportunity to observe." Thus, from this undisputed fact, the Supreme Court held that Funston's negligence contributed to his injuries as a matter of law.

When Personal and Subject Matter Jurisdiction Exist A Court's Decision May Be Set Aside For Legal Error Through Direct Appeal Not Collateral Attack

In K.S. v. State of Indiana the Supreme Court held that when personal and subject matter jurisdiction exist a court's decision may be set aside for legal error only through direct appeal, and not through a collateral attack.  Subject Matter jurisdiction is jurisdiction involving the type of case involved, whereas personal jurisdiction is jurisdiction based on the appropriate process being effectuated on the parties.  The Court further suggests ceasing to use terms such as "jurisdiction over a particular case" because terms like these confuse actual jurisdiction with legal error. 

Police not immune for injuries incurred from negligent operation of vehicle while pursuing a fleeing suspect

In City of Indianapolis and Indianapolis Police Department v. Richard Garman the Indiana Supreme Court decided in accord with Patrick v. Miresso that police officers are not immune when the vehicle that they are driving while chasing a fleeing suspect hits and injures someone.  The Defendants claimed the that Tort Claims Act provided them with immunity, however, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision that police chases are not immune. 

Appellate Rule 14 Governs Appeals From Interlocutory Orders

On December 7, 2005, the Indiana Supreme Court, in Daimler Chrysler Corp. v. Yaeger, held that appeals from interlocutory orders are governed by Appellate Rule 14, and not by Appellate Rule 66(B).  The court explained that if the appeal does not qualify under Rule 14(A) as an appeal as a matter of right, then the appeal must receive both certification by the trial court and acceptance by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Rule 14(B). 

Claim of Errors in Instructions Must Be Raised in the Trial

In PSI Energy, Inc. v. William Lee Roberts, Jr. & Beverly Roberts, the Indiana Supreme Court dictated the method upon which a party can appeal an instruction of a trial court.  The court stated that any challenges to an instruction should be presented at a time when they are still correctable.  In accordance with this policy, the court held that a claim of errors in the instructions must be raised pursuant to Rule 51(c), which mandates the claim be presented in the trial.  Thus, even though the federal rules do not find it necessary to object at that time to preserve the appeal, the rule in Indiana now is that if you do not object, you lose the right to appeal.

Principal Attorney in Firm Reprimanded and Admonished

The Indiana Supreme Court publicly reprimanded and admonished the principal attorney of a Highland law firm for assisting in the unauthorized practice of law, In the Matter of John M. Hughes.  The Court found unacceptable the principal attorney’s allowing an individual, only admitted to the Michigan Bar, to represent clients in Indianaby taking depositions and attending a mediation session.  The Court also took issue with the firm’s letterhead for failing to clearly note the jurisdictional limitations of the attorneys.

Supreme Court Explains Laches

The Indiana Supreme Court used the doctrine of laches to reject a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute creating the Ft. Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority.  In SMDFund, Inc. vs. Ft. Wayne-Allen County Airport Authority, the Court explained that laches requires: 1) an inexcusable delay in asserting a known right; 2) an implied waiver arising from a long acquiescence in existing conditions; and 3) a change in circumstances causing prejudice to the adverse party.  The Court ruled that under the circumstances of this case, a delay of seventeen years in challenging a statute was too long.

Good Faith Dispute On Insurance Coverage Does Not Preclude Punitive Damages

The Indiana Supreme Court, in Monroe Guaranty Insurance Co. vs Megawerks Corp., ruled that a good faith dispute on insurance coverage does not automatically preclude an award of punitive damages when coverage is denied.

The case is also important from a procedural standpoint because the Court ruled that a trial court cannot consider untimely designations of evidence in response to a motion for summary judgment.  Failure to object (and possibly a motion to strike) will waive the untimeliness issue.

Chief Justice Shepard wrote a concurring opinion.  Justice Sullivan wrote a dissenting opinion.