ILNews

COA reverses summary judgment for NCAA on negligence claim

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A woman who was injured at a fencing event at the University of Notre Dame should have been granted more time to present relevant materials in opposition to the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s motion for summary judgment on her negligence claim, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday.

Lydia Lanni was struck in the left eye by a fencing saber, causing a severe injury, while she was at an allegedly NCAA-sanctioned fencing match at Notre Dame. The NCAA denies that it was involved with the match. She sued alleging negligence by the NCAA. It filed a motion to dismiss and/or motion for summary judgment. The NCAA attached the affidavit of Kelly Whitaker Shaul, the NCAA’s fencing championships manager, to its motion.

Lanni sought an extension to respond to the NCAA’s motion, arguing discovery was still ongoing. The trial court granted the NCAA’s motion to stay discovery pending the ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the NCAA’s motion for summary judgment.

Lanni argued that she hadn’t received any notice that the trial court would treat the combined motion as a summary judgment motion and that she had a lack of opportunity to conduct discovery.

In Lydia Lanni v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, et al., 49A05-1208-CT-392, the judges found that the trial court’s treatment of the NCAA’s motion for summary judgment was proper because evidence outside the pleading was presented and not excluded by the trial court. But, the conversion from a Trial Rule 12(B)(6) motion to a Trial Rule 56 motion requires the trial court to give all parties reasonable opportunity to present all pertinent material.

The NCAA argued that Lanni’s discovery requests were nothing more than generic form requests, but the “NCAA’s self-serving interpretation of what issues are ‘material’ to the cause should not be prevailing,” Judge Patricia Riley wrote. “Here, the NCAA’s motions, granted by the trial court, effectively prevented Lanni from conducting any discovery, let alone any reasonable discovery.”

The judges also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lanni’s request to strike Shaul’s affidavit. White it might contain some generalized statements, they are nevertheless credible and clearly based on personal knowledge stemming from the position she holds, and as such are admissible evidence.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT