ILNews

Justices take guest statute case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted a case that deals with whether a tort claim filed by a son against his father should be precluded by the Indiana Guest Statute. The case prompted each judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals panel that heard the case to author an opinion.

In the memorandum decision in Robert L. Clark, Jr. and Debra Clark v. Robert L. Clark, Sr., No. 01S02-1112-CT-690, Robert Clark Jr. and his wife, Debra, alleged negligence and loss of consortium against Robert Clark Sr. following an accident that severely injured Clark Jr.’s leg. The son had traveled with his father to a friend’s home to fill jugs with drinking water. When Clark Jr. tried to help his father parallel park, Clark Sr. hit the gas pedal instead of the break, hitting his son.

Clark Sr. asserted the Indiana Guest Statute as an affirmative defense, and the trial court granted his motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the majority found that the statute – which defines when someone responsible for operating a motor vehicle is not liable for a loss or damage arising from injuries or death to certain people, including one’s child – was inapplicable in the case and does not preclude the couple’s suit against Clark Sr.

Clark Jr. never claimed he was “in or upon” his father’s vehicle or “being transported” at the time he was injured. Chief Judge Margret Robb dissented, finding the better reading of Clark Sr.’s answers to requests for admissions is that they used “in” and “upon” in a generic and factual sense and not a legal sense.

“I read Senior as admitting that Junior was not literally inside or on top of the Chevrolet at the moment of impact, yet reserving the issue of whether he was “in or upon” the vehicle for purposes of applying the Guest Statute,” she wrote.

Judge Nancy Vaidik concurred with Judge Melissa May’s holding, but wrote separately because she believed summary judgment was improper due to C.M.L. ex rel. Brabant v. Republic Services Inc., 800 N.E.2d 200 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), which also dealt with the Indiana Guest Statute.
 

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

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT