ILNews

COA reverses trial court in personal injury case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s denial of a motion to transfer, holding that Marion County is not a preferred venue for the case.

In Salsbery Pork Producers, Inc., Richard K. Wilson, Tipton Co. Commissioners, Tipton Co. Highway Department, Chad Bergin, State of Indiana, Indiana Department of Transportation v. Latina Booth, No. 49A02-1110-CT-983, Latina Booth filed a lawsuit in Marion County after she was seriously injured in a crash. The basis for filing in Indianapolis was that she named the state as a defendant, holding it had failed to properly maintain the Tipton County road where she was injured.

Booth was a passenger in Chad Bergin’s car, traveling along County Road 1100 in Tipton County. Richard K. Wilson was driving a tractor in the scope of his employment with Salsbery Pork Producers when he pulled onto the road and struck Bergin’s car.

Booth named Bergin, Wilson, Salsbery, the state and Tipton County as defendants in her negligence suit.

Tipton County filed a motion for change of venue, saying that only the county – not the state – had control over CR 1100, and therefore the case should be moved from Marion County. The trial court denied the motion, but the appellate court reversed that decision.

The COA held that the state should have been dropped from the case and that the preferred venue is Tipton County, where most of the defendants are located, and where the accident happened. But the appellate judges rejected the defendants’ claims that Booth’s decision to file in Marion County was in bad faith, because evidence of who controlled the county road surfaced only after the Tipton County defendants moved for transfer of venue. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with the appellate court opinion.   

 

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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT