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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT