The U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana is asking the state’s Supreme Court to accept a certified
question in litigation involving the Indiana Products Liability Act.
U.S. District Judge Larry J. McKinney granted plaintiff Nicholas Green’s motion to certify a question of Indiana law
June 30. The question is, “Whether, in a crashworthiness case alleging enhanced injuries under the Indiana Products
Liability Act, the finder of fact shall apportion fault to the person suffering physical harm when that alleged fault relates
to the cause of the underlying accident.”
Green was driving a 1999 Ford Explorer Sport in Indianapolis in January 2006 when his vehicle left the road, hit a guard
rail, rolled down an embankment, and came to rest upside down in a ditch. Green is now a quadriplegic because of the accident.
He sued Ford Motor Company in federal court under the state’s Product Liability Act, claiming the design of the car
was defective and unreasonably dangerous, and Ford was negligent in its design of the car’s restraint system.
Ford intends to assert an affirmative defense based upon Green’s alleged negligence in causing the underlying accident.
Green argues his alleged negligence is irrelevant because only a product’s defective design can cause “enhanced
injuries.”
“…the critical question is whether a plaintiff who negligently causes the underlying accident in a crashworthiness
or enhanced injury case also ‘causes’ the enhanced injuries that, by law, the plaintiff is required to prove were
caused by the defective design,” wrote Judge McKinney. “Indiana Code section 34-20-8-1 does not answer that question
….”
Judge McKinney noted that the law is uncertain, no Indiana court has written on the issue, there is a split of authority
in other states, and the issue is a matter of vital public concern. Until the issue is resolved, the judge administratively
closed the case out of the Indianapolis Division, Nicholas A. Green v. Ford Motor Co., No. 1:08-CV-0163, pending
a resolution by the Supreme Court.














Judge Roger B. Cosbey is unethical and bias toward African American who seeks justice in Title VII claims. He disrespected and used his authority to attempt to intimidate me into taking an unfair settlement and when I refused he proceeded to get my case dismissed and to deny me my Constitutional and Civil Rights. He disobeying several rules of law; specifically, by ruling on summary judgment motions against the Fed. R. Civ. P., without authority of Judge William C. Lee, without consent of the attorneys, and with conspiracy to commit “fraud on the court,” as he conspired with my former attorney. He proved to me that he is bias, unethical, unfair and unfit to be reappointed. In my opinion, he should be disbarred in 2013, for committing fraud on the court, which would make him ineligible for reinstatement in 2014. See docket 3:07 cv 629 where he rules on dispositive motions, knowing magistrates are not vested with that power (especially without consent), grants the defendant an unconscionable number of extensions, accepts my former attorney request for extension for dispositive motion knowing he was working with the opposition, and unbelievably grants the defendant another extension after he requested an extension after he missed the deadline. I know another attorney filed charges against him for bias in race discrimination case(s). I know what he did in my case before he voluntarily recused himself, I just do not know how many other innocent people have been stripped of their rights because of him. I say shame on him and no more of the same.
they are pushing these cases against lawyers too far. thought-crime.
vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!
Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.
With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.