ILNews

District judge asks court to answer certified question

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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