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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.