Government Liability

February 20, 2018

Court Strictly Interprets Recreational Use Statute, Rejecting Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Claim

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case requiring the court to interpret and apply the state’s recreational use statute. Ultimately, the court interpreted the statute as written to confer immunity to the defendant landowner, so the plaintiff’s case was dismissed. While the case was brought in a different state, it discusses concepts that may be relevant to Indiana premises liability claim.

Recreational Use Statutes

Under Indiana Code section 14-22-10-2-5, landowners who open up their land so that the general public can enjoy various recreational activities are not liable if someone engaging in a recreational activity is hurt while on the landowner’s property. However, the statute only confers immunity if the landowner does not require payment for the use of their land. Moreover, if the landowner’s conduct is malicious or constitutes an illegal act, immunity will not attach.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs in the case mentioned above were the parents of a young girl who fell through the bleachers at a youth football game. In order to get into the game, the plaintiffs were required to pay the $2 admission fee; however, there was no fee for children under six years old. As a result of her fall, the plaintiffs’ daughter was seriously injured, and the plaintiffs filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city that owned and operated the stadium.

January 23, 2018

Court Dismisses Bike Injury Victim’s Case Based on Recreational Use Immunity Statute

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

During the formative years of the United States, certain principles were included in the U.S. Constitution and early amendments that still exist today. However, over time, the country has moved away from some of these principles and limited their application through the passage of new laws. One of the principles that has been continually rolled back over the past two centuries is the idea of government immunity.

Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and subsequent case-law interpreting that Amendment, the federal and state governments enjoy immunity from lawsuits filed by citizens unless the government waives this immunity. Initially, this meant that very few lawsuits could be brought against government entities. However, the federal and state governments began passing various “tort claims acts,” which would statutorily waive immunity in some circumstances.

In Indiana, the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) waives the government’s immunity in certain circumstances and provides procedural rules that Indiana accident victims must follow when bringing a lawsuit against the state government. The ITCA is designed to clarify under which situations the government can be held liable, and when the government’s inherent immunity remains intact. A recent case illustrates the difficulties one victim in another state had when he attempted to establish that his injuries fell outside the scope of government immunity.

December 5, 2017

Court Discusses School’s Liability in Gym Class Injury Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Indiana schools have a duty to ensure the safety of students while they are attending school and after-school activities. This duty generally requires that school employees and administrators take reasonable precautions to prevent injuries. For example, schools are required to maintain safe premises, free of dangerous hazards that may result in an Indiana slip-and-fall accident.

Schools are also responsible to take adequate precautions when designing curriculums, especially in classes that present a heightened danger, such as shop classes and gym classes. However, there are several legal doctrines that can come into play when a student is injured at school. A recent case illustrates the type of analysis a court will conduct when considering whether a school can be held liable for a student’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a student at the defendant school. One day in gym class, the plaintiff was injured when he was accidentally struck in the eye by another student’s stick during a game of floor hockey. After the accident, the plaintiff required eye surgery.

October 25, 2017

Recreational Use Statute Prevents Plaintiff’s Lawsuit Following Rope-Swing Accident

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Indiana landowners have a duty to make sure that their property is safe for the people whom they allow to enter and remain on their property. When a landowner fails to take adequate precautions to ensure a safe area, the injured party can generally seek compensation for their injuries through an Indiana premises liability lawsuit.

Indiana’s recreational use statute, however, limits a landowner’s liability in some situations. Indiana Code, Title 14, Article 22, Chapter 10, Section 14-22-10-2-5 outlines the state’s recreational use statute. Essentially, a landowner who allows others to use his property at no cost for recreational purposes cannot be held liable for any injuries that are caused as a result of the use of their land. Of course, this does not apply if the landowner acts maliciously or willfully causes an injury to someone using their land. A recent case illustrates how a state’s recreational use statute prevented the family of a young boy from recovering compensation for their son’s injuries.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the father of a boy who was injured while playing on a rope swing adjacent to a government-owned lake. The child was enjoying the rope swing with several friends, and they would take turns swinging from a nearby tree into the water. As the person swinging was in the air, the other children would try to slap his feet before he splashed into the water. When the plaintiff’s friend was swinging, the plaintiff attempted to slap his friend’s feet. However, the two boys collided, resulting in the plaintiff being seriously injured.

September 26, 2017

Government Organization Potentially Evades Responsibility in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Due to Parties’ Procedural Missteps

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When someone intends on filing an Indiana wrongful death lawsuit, a thorough investigation must be conducted to determine all of the proper parties that should be named in the lawsuit. In situations in which a government entity is discovered to be one of the potential defendants, Indiana law requires that certain additional steps be taken when naming that entity as a defendant.

Under the Indiana Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees Act, plaintiffs intending on filing lawsuits filed against government entities must first provide notice of the claim to the government entity. This notice is due either 180 or 270 days after the incident. If a party fails to provide the government entity with notice of the claim and proceeds to file the claim, the court will dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

A recent wrongful death case illustrates the importance of conducting a thorough investigation.

September 12, 2017

Indiana Personal Injury Lawsuits Against Government Entities

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

As a general rule, government entities cannot be held liable for Indiana accidents under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The concept of sovereign immunity has been around since the formation of our country. Essentially, sovereign immunity provides total immunity to government entities and employees for their negligent acts. However, over the years, states have enacted various laws that create exceptions to this general rule, permitting some lawsuits against the government.

Indiana’s version of this law is called the “Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees Act.” Under the Act, sovereign immunity is waived in some situations in which a government employee’s or entity’s negligent action caused someone’s injuries. However, the Act specifically excludes certain types of lawsuits, including accidents involving discretionary acts, the condition of unpaved roads and trails, and most weather-related accidents.

That being said, the Act permits lawsuits against the government for some common accidents, including car accidents caused by government employees and slip-and-fall accidents occurring on government property. Even when sovereign immunity is waived under the Act, however, the accident victim must comply with a strict set of rules in order for their case to be heard and considered. A recent case illustrates the difficulties one accident victim had when he failed to comply with the notice requirements under a similar act.

July 11, 2017

Court Upholds City’s Government Immunity in Recent Slip-and-Fall Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Alabama issued a written opinion in a premises liability case that was brought by an accident victim against a local city that owned and operated the park where the plaintiff’s injury occurred. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss recreational-use immunity and what a plaintiff must show to overcome this immunity. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to establish a crucial element of her claim in that she did not show that the city had actual knowledge of the hazard that caused her fall.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was visiting a park owned and operated by the defendant city. The plaintiff arrived at the park on July 4, in the morning hours. After parking her vehicle, the plaintiff made her way around a set of vertical poles that established the parking area without any problem. However, hours later, when the plaintiff made her way back to her vehicle, she tripped and fell on a diagonal cross-bar that connected two of the vertical poles. Evidence presented to the court suggested that while the area was lit by overhead street lights, the general condition of the lighting was “poor.”

The plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, claiming that the lack of lighting combined with the condition of the vertical poles created a dangerous hazard. In response to the lawsuit, the city had a maintenance supervisor testify that the city had no actual knowledge of the dangerous condition and that there had never been a similar accident reported nor any report of a dangerous condition.

May 17, 2017

Court Dismisses Personal Injury Case, Applying “Firefighter’s Rule”

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion in a car accident case that was brought by a woman who was run over by a truck as she was on location fighting a wildfire. The court ultimately determined that since the woman’s injuries were caused in the course of her employment as a firefighter, she was not able to pursue a case against the driver of the vehicle that ran her over.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was a firefighter who was called out to assist in fighting a particularly serious wildfire. The team of firefighters had set up a base camp in the middle of a race track, where there were restrooms and showers. Most of the firefighters camped a short distance from the racetrack. However, by the time the plaintiff arrived at the camp, all of the sites were taken, and she had to search for another place to sleep.

The plaintiff sought permission from her supervisor to set up camp in the middle of the race track, near where base camp was set up. She was granted permission and set up camp. However, on the second night staying there, a truck that was driven by a government contractor ran over the plaintiff as she was sleeping. She sustained serious injuries and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the truck’s driver and several other government entities.

March 27, 2017

Party’s Failure to Raise an Issue at Trial Will Almost Certainly Prevent Appellate Review of That Issue

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

An axiomatic law of appellate procedure is that an appellate court can only rule on an issue on which the trial court had the opportunity to rule below. Thus, any argument that a party fails to make during a trial will considered to be waived for the purpose of appellate review. This rule is very important for personal injury plaintiffs to keep in mind, since it means that a thorough investigation must be conducted and the case properly prepared prior to trial to ensure that all available evidence is gathered and effectively presented to the court.

A recent opinion in a slip-and-fall case illustrates how a plaintiff’s failure to adequately gather all of the evidence and present it to the trial court prevented that party from using the evidence on appeal.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a young boy who was injured while playing a game of baseball in a park that was owned by the defendant city. At the pre-trial motion for summary judgment, the city argued that it was entitled to immunity under the state’s recreational use statute. The plaintiffs issued a very broad objection to the applicability of the recreational use statute but did not offer any argument as to why the application of the statute was not appropriate. The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, and the plaintiffs appealed.

January 24, 2017

Court Determines that City May Be Liable for Accident Caused by Overgrown Stop Sign

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Late this month, an appellate court in Ohio issued an interesting decision involving the limits of a local government’s immunity from personal injury lawsuits involving claims that the government failed to maintain a public road. In the case, Bibler v. Stevenson, the court determined that a local government was not entitled to immunity when it allowed a stop sign to become overgrown with brush, resulting in a motorist running the stop sign and striking the plaintiff.

The Facts of the Case

Back in 2011, Bibler was driving through an intersection when he was struck by another motorist who had run a stop sign. When asked by police what happened, the other motorist explained that she had not seen the stop sign. The officer then investigated the motorist’s claim and agreed that the stop sign was obstructed by overgrown foliage.

Bibler filed a lawsuit against the other driver as well as the city where the intersection was located. Bibler eventually settled with the other driver out of court, and the case against the city proceeded toward trial. However, the trial judge dismissed the case against the city, explaining that the city was presumptively entitled to government immunity, and Bibler failed to establish an exception. Bibler appealed.