Paul Komyatti, Jr. v. The Consolidated City of Indianapolis-Marion County and Citizens Energy Group -3/18/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Thursday  April 25, 2013 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 49A04-1209-CT-445. In June 2010, Paul Komyatti rode his bicycle to an Indianapolis bar, drank some beers, and started biking home.  As Komyatti was biking at least twenty miles per hour on the left side of the street under a railroad bridge, his front wheel struck a water-filled pothole.  Komyatti fell off his bike and was injured.  He was taken to the hospital, where his blood alcohol concentration was measured at .137, which exceeds the .08 legal limit for operating a vehicle.  Komyatti filed suit against the City of Indianapolis and Citizens Energy Group.  He alleged that the City was negligent in maintaining the street and that Citizens was negligent in allowing coke to clog the storm drains under the railroad bridge, which allegedly contributed to the pothole.  The City moved for summary judgment on the basis that Komyatti was contributorily negligent, which is a complete bar to recovery in tort claims against governmental entities.  Citizens also moved for summary judgment, asserting that it did not create a dangerous condition, had no duty to maintain the street, and did not proximately cause Komyatti’s injuries.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both the City and Citizens. Komyatti now appeals.

Back to Events
Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues