ILNews

Indiana State Fair tragedy renews cap debate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Two months after the Indiana State Fair grandstand stage collapsed during strong winds, lawyers are lining up to represent those impacted by the Aug. 13 tragedy.

But the aftermath goes far beyond the incident that killed seven people, injured more than 40 and left a state wondering whether the accident could have been prevented. Indiana attorneys and legislators are embarking on a broader discussion about the state’s current tort claim cap and whether that decades-old limit is adequate to address the scope of this situation.

A state liability investigation is ongoing. To date, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General has received 51 tort claim notices – the procedural first step for any potential lawsuit against the state. Claimants legally have 270 days to file a tort claim notice with the state. In this case, the AG has asked that customized forms be filed by Nov. 1 to help expedite financial assistance to the victims and families through the Indiana Tort Claim Fund.

By law, Indiana is limited to paying no more than $700,000 per individual or $5 million per single incident to settle tort claims. Of the 51 tort notices filed as of Oct. 7, 21 law firms have indicated they are representing at least one client. The remaining individuals are not represented but have completed the state form. So far, two firms – both in Indianapolis – have said they are doing some of the work free of charge.
 

kenley-luke-mug.jpg Kenley

The bottom line is that all of the lawyers and their clients share a stake in what happens in the debate over the tort claim limit. Some have expressed concern over a suggestion that the cap be raised to address claims by state fair victims only or whether the limit be increased permanently. Sen. Luke Kenley, R-Noblesville, has been critical of what he has called a “trial lawyer’s push” for a more general cap increase for all cases, and Gov. Mitch Daniels has expressed skepticism about raising the cap in general if some of that money might go to the lawyers.

But even as attorneys fees becomes a part of the discussion on raising the tort fund limit, not everyone agrees that fees should be a consideration. Even the trial lawyers aren’t all on the same page about how they are approaching the issue.

Constitutional challenge or lawyer generosity?

Valparaiso attorney Ken Allen is taking his battle against the statutory cap to the courtroom. On Sept. 26, Allen filed a federal class-action lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana that challenges the damage cap on grounds that it violates due process and equal protection because it denies individuals their fair share.


allen-kenneth-mug.jpg Allen

“The cap on damages is arbitrary and capricious,” Allen said in a news release. “The limits on liability further fosters negligence and creates a disincentive to safety by making it economical for the state to take unreasonable risks and act negligently, particularly in large functions wherein hundreds of people may be subject to harm from a single occurrence.”

Allen didn’t respond to Indiana Lawyer requests for comment about whether he thinks a court challenge or legislative action is the best way to address the cap, or if he believes the cap should be increased for state fair victims only or on a broader scale.

But Indianapolis lawyer Lance Cline with Cline Farrell Christie Lee & Caress thinks the legal community can directly influence that debate by using pro bono representation in the state fair litigation. Cline is leading behind-the-scenes discussions with a network of about 15 to 20 firms that represent about 30 clients. The group has met several times since the week after the accident, and Cline said he’s “politely nudging” other lawyers to work free of charge.


cline-lance-mug.jpg Cline

“There are no strings attached and this is not a cute lawyer trick, and this is not about getting more clients,” he said. “I’ve felt strongly about this from day one, and it’s just the right thing to do.”

Cline finds inspiration for that idea from his peers in Minnesota. Following the August 2007 Interstate 35W bridge collapse that killed 13 people and injured 145, Minnesota’s bar provided its largest-ever pro bono representation of victims. A unique consortium of 17 firms represented clients free of charge, resulting in three years of litigation and a $52.4 million settlement last year with the engineering company responsible for inspecting the bridge.

That lawyer-driven effort received national publicity, and it led to that state creating a $36.64 million fund for the victims. A $1 million cap was in place at the time of the tragedy. The attorneys worked with Minnesota lawmakers to ensure the legislation to raise the cap for that single incident was worded to exclude any attorney fees.

“That could happen here in Indiana,” Cline said.

Tony Patterson with Parr Richey Obremskey Frandsen & Patterson in Lebanon is in the group discussing pro bono options for state fair victims. A steering committee has been created to work on hiring specific experts and sharing information so costs are not duplicated. Investigation and liability details aren’t fully known yet, so attorneys aren’t able to grasp at this point what expense they might be undertaking in this litigation and what it might cost to pursue these actions.

“Each firm is going to have to work with their clients and decide what makes sense and is fair and reasonable, and all of us understand that this isn’t something we’re doing to make money, but it costs money to do this,” Patterson said. “But I’ll tell you, just talking about this communal aspect has been pretty refreshing. No matter what other lawyers decide, this is a good discussion that we should all be having about what we do for a living.”

Indianapolis firm Cohen & Malad announced it is waiving fees for clients, but only on the state-focused claims. The firm’s proposed class-action lawsuit filed in Marion Superior Court in late August was on behalf of a woman who wasn’t physically injured but had “severe emotional trauma” from witnessing the stage collapse. Managing partner Irwin Levin said the suit is designed to include all victims who are dealing with injuries and emotional stress but might not realize it within the 270-day notification period.


levin-irwin-mug.jpg Levin

Levin said that fees have nothing to do with the issue of raising the cap and that the limit is arbitrary and the Legislature should follow the lead of Minnesota.

On behalf of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana, Terre Haute attorney Scott Kyrouac said any pro bono effort should be aimed at helping those who couldn’t otherwise obtain legal services and not to satisfy “a hidden agenda.”

“In determining if the amount of the cap is appropriate, there should be open discussions with exchange of facts and studies so that the Legislature can determine what changes, if any, are appropriate,” he said. “If there needs to be an exception to the statutory cap in the case of mass catastrophic injuries, then an informed Legislature is best to decide the same.”

Early legislative response

Rep. Ed. DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, has already voiced his support for increasing the cap for victims in this situation but has been informed by the legislative leadership that early hearings won’t be scheduled. He says he will use “every legislative maneuver” to have the cap adequacy debate sooner, and he says that many side issues may arise, such as allocation and how legal fees might be handled.

“I don’t like broad comments or implications about it being improper for a lawyer to take a fee, because that’s not my understanding of capitalism,” DeLaney said. “I’m proud of the lawyers who do that, and think it’s honorable and wise, but I won’t criticize any attorney who takes a fee for this type of complex case. I think we need to raise the limit, but it seems to me that there are other issues in this mud fight and none of those side debates help people in this situation.”

Kenley is skeptical of the increase overall and said he believes any cap increase should apply across the board and not to a specific situation such as the state fair stage collapse. The Legislature should wait until the investigation is complete and liability is clearer to have that discussion, he said.

“If the tort cap needs to be raised, we should look at all the possible situations,” he said. “If you’ve waived fees in this one situation, I don’t see that as having a bearing on how we address the cap overall.”

Still, Cline hopes more lawyers embrace the idea of what he describes as “an unprecedented showing of generosity” to the likes we haven’t seen here before, sending a good-faith message to state legislators.

“I can just hear the lawmakers in Indiana say it now: that the lawyers would get some of this money, that it’s the ‘Plaintiffs Attorney Compensation Bill.’ We have the power to diffuse that before it happens.”•

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT