ILNews

Appellate court splits on liability of city

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split today in deciding whether the city of South Bend should have known putting heavy machinery on an unstable sidewalk would create an unreasonable risk of harm to a brick restorer.

At issue in City of South Bend v. Charles Dollahan, No. 46A03-0901-CV-17, was whether the city was liable for Charles Dollahan's loss. Dollahan, a brick restorer, needed to repair bricks approximately 30 feet above the ground. His company got a permit to allow a boom lift to be placed on the city sidewalk in front of the building. Dollahan saw the sidewalks were in questionable condition, but figured the sidewalk was safe after he performed stress tests with the boom lift on the sidewalk. After he got in the lift and was in the air, the sidewalk collapsed, sinking the lift into a fissure beneath the sidewalk and injuring Dollahan.

An investigation revealed base material under the sidewalk had eroded and steel reinforcement I-beams had been inserted into the sidewalk, an indication of past problems with the sidewalk.

Dollahan sued the city, alleging it was negligent in issuing the permit and in its failure to warn him about latent defects in the sidewalk under the theory of premises liability. He called on a city engineer to testify, who said the reinforcement indicated there was a void before under the sidewalk and that it likely would have collapsed had any heavy machinery been placed on it. The trial court awarded Dollahan more than $300,000.

The majority agreed that the city failed to maintain its property in a safe condition and to warn of any latent defects in the sidewalk where the lift was to be placed. The city engineer's testimony supported the trial court's conclusion that the city knew or should have known putting the lift on the sidewalk, given the history of the sidewalk's instability, would create an unreasonable risk of harm to Dollahan, and that the city breached its duty to exercise reasonable care when it failed to maintain the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. The finding and judgment that the city was liable based upon the theory of premises liability is well supported, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

Judge Margret Robb dissented on this issue, writing the city knew there had been a void under the sidewalk and took steps to reinforce the sidewalk. There was no evidence showing the steel beams and backfill were an insufficient means of reinforcement.

"There is no evidence suggesting the City knew when it issued this permit the sidewalk was no longer adequately reinforced," she wrote. "In short, I believe the evidence shows the City corrected the defect in the sidewalk by placement of the steel beams and did not know and had no reason to know the defect had recurred."

The appellate court also found the trial court erred when it ruled the city had waived the defense of governmental immunity but that the error was harmless.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT