ILNews

COA split on which statute of limitation applies

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split today in its decision as to whether Indiana's two-year statute of limitations for personal injury torts or the three-year statute of limitations under the Federal Employers' Liability Act applied in a man's FELA claim in state court.
 
The majority ruled the three-year statute of limitations under the FELA applied in the instant case.

In Steven A. Januchowski v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, No. 64A03-0806-CV-330, the appellate court had to decide which statute of limitation applies in suits in Indiana against political subdivisions such as the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, where issues of sovereign immunity come into play. It's already been settled the FELA statute of limitations applies over state statute in suits against private entities.
 
Steven Januchowski worked for NICTD and was injured on the job. His complaint in state court was filed a little over two years after he was injured.
 
The trial court ruled Indiana's general two-year statute of limitations for torts applied rather than the FELA statute of limitations because suits against governmental entities must be brought in compliance with the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of NICTD.

The ITCA doesn't explicitly state which statute of limitation applies in this case, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik, although another part of Indiana Code refers to the general statute of limitation for torts, which is two years. The majority found the omission of the statute of limitations to be significant, given the legislature has inserted specific statute of limitations into other acts. Because it doesn't expressly contain a statute of limitation, the majority disagreed with NICTD's argument the two-year statute of limitations applies to all tort claims against the state no matter what the claim.

"Because we are to treat governmental entities like private entities unless the ITCA commands otherwise and the ITCA does not do so here, we will apply FELA to NICTD as if it were a private entity," wrote the judge. "As discussed above, FELA's three-year statute of limitation is regarded as a substantive right. Having complied with the three-year statute of limitation, Januchowski's suit may proceed."

In his dissent, Judge Carr Darden wrote because Januchowski chose to proceed with his FELA claim in state court instead of federal court, he should have complied with the Indiana procedural statute providing for a two-year statute of limitations on personal injury claims. Even though the ITCA contains no express statute of limitation provision, that ignores Indiana Code Section 34-11-2-4, which gives two years for personal injury claims. The majority also ignored the long-standing principle that statutes addressing the same subject are in pari materia and to be read in harmony if possible, he wrote.

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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT