ILNews

High court grants transfer Thursday

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer Thursday to a case questioning whether the Indiana Department of Transportation is liable for the death of an employee of an independent contractor working on a highway project.

In Lorraine Bunn, as personal representative of the estate of Robert P. Bunn, deceased, and Robert L. Bunn v. Indiana Dept. of Transportation, No. 50A03-0810-CV-504, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of INDOT on the estate's negligence claims. Robert P. Bunn was fatally electrocuted while working on a highway construction project INDOT contracted to his employer.

INDOT moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to Robert or his son Robert L. Bunn (Bobby), who witnessed the accident, because they were independent contractors.

Judges L. Mark Bailey and Margret Robb cited Indiana Dept. of Transportation v. Howard, 879 N.E.2d 1119 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and concluded that INDOT couldn't avoid liability on the basis of its delegation of its responsibilities to maintain and repair state highways. They also believed INDOT's contract with Pioneer, who subcontracted work to the company where Bunn worked, held INDOT liable.

Judge Carr Darden dissented, because he believed Howard applies only to work performed by an independent contractor in which the negligent execution of that work may endanger the traveling public. The person killed in Howard was a person traveling on the road, not an employee. The judge also believed INDOT couldn't be held liable based on the contract it had with Pioneer.

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