ILNews

Tort law case tests boundaries of 'duty'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion that answered some complicated questions about the point at which one person assumes a “duty” to another. But the panel did not reach a consensus, with one judge writing that the majority opinion could have a negative impact on public policy.

People who ponder tort law say that the question of who owes a duty to whom has been endlessly debated. And while non-lawyers may be unaware of these debates, the actions they take every day are affected by them.
 

bodkin-tom.jpg Bodkin

R. Thomas Bodkin, a partner with Evansville’s Bamberger Foreman Oswald & Hahn, explained tort law’s role in civilized society.

“As we teach them how to drive, the obligation to stop at a stop sign – that kind of thing – we are teaching people about duty,” he said. “We just don’t use the label.”

The case

In Jacob Key, Ted J. Brown and Sally A. Brown v. Dewayne Hamilton, No. 48A02-1007-CT-812, the question the appellate court was asked to review for the first time is whether a driver who signals another driver to proceed onto a roadway is liable for injuries sustained by a third party.

Jacob Key, a truck driver employed by Ted and Sally Brown, was traveling southbound on Indiana State Road 9 when he approached a line of cars stopped due to a stoplight at the next intersection. Key stopped at the Market St. intersection, allowing enough space for John Owens to make a left turn in front of him from a perpendicular street (from Market St. onto State Road 9). For reasons not specified in the opinion, Key got out of his work truck, standing on the doorsill to check behind him for oncoming traffic. He then gave an “all-clear” courtesy wave to Owens, who then pulled out in front of Key to turn left. But Key had not seen motorcyclist Dewayne Hamilton traveling southbound in the adjacent lane. Hamilton, who was traveling above the speed limit, crashed into Owens’ vehicle, and the force of the impact propelled Hamilton over Owens’ vehicle onto the roadway, seriously injuring Hamilton.

At trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Hamilton, allocating fault as follows: 5 percent to Hamilton, 45 percent to Key and 50 percent to non-party Owens. Key and his employers appealed that decision.

Betsy Greene, a partner with Bloomington’s Greene & Schultz, said that what distinguishes this case from similar “courtesy wave” cases is that, typically, when a driver simply waves another driver to proceed in front of his car, the waver only guarantees that he will not crash into the driver he signaled. But the fact that Key involves an injured third party adds a new wrinkle to the discussion of duty.courtesy

In the COA opinion, the majority agreed that when Key got out of his truck to look behind him to ensure the road was clear, he assumed a duty to Hamilton, even though he didn’t see Hamilton at the time.

“I also am persuaded by the fact that this person really went to great lengths to determine that there was no traffic, and under those circumstances I think it would be fair for that driver to rely upon that information,” Greene said.

Judge Paul Mathias wrote in his dissent that Key’s behavior in thoroughly checking for traffic was laudatory. “Yet the majority opinion effectively penalizes drivers such as Key, who at least try to discern whether there is any oncoming traffic, by exposing them to liability for any resulting collision,” Mathias wrote.

The majority opinion might result in drivers – wary of being held liable for possible consequences – being less inclined to offer a courtesy wave, which in turn could result in more “road rage” on Indiana’s roadways, he wrote.

“That was an interesting argument the judge used – kind of a parade of the horribles – because you did this, the following things will occur,” Bodkin said.

Application of the law

The Court of Appeals occasionally travels to hear oral arguments, and in October, it took the Key case to Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Don Gjerdingen, professor at the law school, was present for the oral arguments in the case.

While the opinion in Key seems narrow in that it rests largely upon the truck driver’s thorough examination of traffic, Gjerdingen said that the case brought up many important issues that he discusses with students.

“If you decide to help a stranger or just to be the classic good Samaritan, what are the permissible legal consequences? The classic rules will say something like this – at least in the United States – there is no legal obligation to help a stranger, so if you just happen to be walking by on the beach and heard some screams, you don’t have to help that person,” Gjerdingen said. But Indiana and many other states have created good Samaritan statutes that protect do-gooders from legal action.

“You don’t have to stop, but if you do stop, we will make it harder to bring a legal action against you,” he said. For example, Indiana Code 34-30-12 protects people who perform non-compensated emergency first aid from civil liability, and I.C. 16-31-6 provides similar protections for emergency medical technicians.

In the Key case, Gjerdingen said that the issue Mathias presents in his dissent is interesting.

“In a way it’s a narrow point, but arguably, it isn’t,” Gjerdingen said. “As a practical matter, what is it going to do? If every driver in the state of Indiana were to read (the opinion), what would the response be? That’s the issue he was raising – would this lead to safer traffic or not?”

Protection for the injured

Bodkin pointed out that while the Key case may be narrow, it certainly assigns duty where duty previously did not exist.

“Anytime we conclude that we’re going to expand duty, somebody’s going to lose, and somebody’s going to win,” he said. “You have an entity that’s going to have to pay money now that never would’ve had to pay money before.”

As a personal injury defense lawyer, Greene spends a lot of time working with focus groups to determine how they would assign liability in a personal injury case, and those groups almost always tend to assign some fault to the injured party.

In the Key case, the jury awarded Hamilton $2.2 million in damages, with 45 percent of the liability assigned to Key.

“Just from my perspective as a plaintiff’s lawyer, I’m wondering if the dissent is suggesting that Hamilton should go uncompensated for the percentage of fault assigned to Key,” Greene said.

Bodkin can’t discern from reading the case what the insurance limits were of the people involved. Both Bodkin and Greene mentioned that this case will likely influence how insurance companies determine negligence. But Greene said she doubts that the case would have a major effect on Indiana drivers. And Bodkin pointed out that like so many tort law cases, some questions may not be resolved – at least not immediately.

“The debate can go on for a long time depending on which piece of the case you want to pick up and carry,” Bodkin said. “I think most of us would assume there’s no duty here on the part of the guy who waved him through. It appears to me that the fact that the guy got out and looked seemed to be the tipping point. I wonder what would’ve happened if he would’ve just looked in his rearview mirror. But that didn’t happen here. That’ll be the next case.”•

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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT