ILNews

High court: land seller not liable in death

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Addressing an issue of first impression today, the Indiana Supreme Court considered under what circumstances a vendor of land may be liable to a third party for harm resulting from the condition of trees on the property near a road.

The majority held that Fred Jackson, as the seller of his property to Ronald Smith through a two-year installment contract, didn't retain possession or control of routine maintenance of the property, so summary judgment in his favor by the trial court was correct.

In Christine R. Scheible, as mother of Travis David Scheible, deceased v. Fred Jackson and Ronald Smith, No. 03S01-0807-CV-390, Christine Scheible brought a wrongful death action against Jackson and Smith after her son Travis was killed while riding his bike. Travis's view of traffic was obstructed by a tree hanging low from the property Jackson sold to Smith, and he rode into the street and was struck by a car.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of Jackson, holding there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Jackson controlled the property after the sale.

Chief Justice Randal T. Shepard and Justices Theodore Boehm and Frank Sullivan affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Jackson, ruling that ownership of the property was transferred to Smith upon execution of the land-sale contract and he had no duty at the time of the accident to maintain the tree as provided by a city ordinance.

Scheible argued Jackson still could be held liable because he acted like a landowner after the sale, citing Smith's need to consult with Jackson before making changes to the property and that Jackson alone held the casualty and liability insurance for the property.

Justice Boehm, writing for the majority, determined that the fact Smith needed permission from Jackson before making changes reflects Jackson wanted to protect his security interest in the property. The same argument goes for the insurance: even though Smith was never added as an insured, Jackson's insurance policy on the property is consistent with his desire to protect his financial investment and doesn't show control, wrote Justice Boehm.

"In sum, the contract called for possession to transfer to Smith at closing. None of the evidence designated is inconsistent with that provision. As a matter of law, liability under section 343, the only provision addressed by the parties, lies with Smith as the possessor of the land," he wrote.

The majority also held the Columbus, Ind., ordinance requiring property owners to trim trees to certain aspects didn't apply to Jackson. Indiana law has long been that when parties enter into a land-sale contract, all incidents of ownership accrue to the vendee, wrote the justice.

Justice Robert Rucker dissented in a separate opinion in which Justice Brent Dickson concurred, writing summary judgment in favor of Jackson was inappropriate. There is an issue of whether or not Jackson exercised some degree of control over the property, and the justices would affirm the Court of Appeals decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT