ILNews

Justices to hear negligent design case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court took three cases last week, including a lawsuit filed by a man rendered a quadriplegic after he fell out of a company truck while working for Richmond Power.

Anthony Wade sued Terex-Telelect Inc., claiming the double-man bucket attached to the company truck was negligently designed under the Indiana Products Liability Act. The jury allocated 100 percent fault to Wade for his fall out of the bucket. A split Court of Appeals believed Wade was prejudiced by the jury instruction as to rebuttable presumption because it was unsupported by relevant evidence, and the appellate court ordered a new trial.

The case is Anthony Wade v. Terex-Telect Inc., 29S05-1209-CT-557.

The justices took two other cases on transfer – In Re: The Visitation of M.L.B., K.J.R. v. M.A.B., 41S01-1209-MI-556; and In Re: Prosecutor’s Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C., S.H. v. State of Indiana, 73S01-1209-CR-563.

The Court of Appeals in M.L.B. affirmed in a not-for-publication decision the order granting grandfather M.A.B.’s petition for visitation rights as to M.L.B. Mother K.J.R. argued that the order exceeded the limitations of the Indiana Grandparent Visitation Act, among other arguments.

In S.H., the Court of Appeals relied on Indiana Supreme Court precedent to find a Shelby County prosecutor could compel parents to testify by proving use immunity. Parents S.H. and S.C. argued the prosecutor couldn’t grant use immunity because there were no grand jury proceedings and they hadn’t been charged with a crime.

The prosecutor sought to compel the parents’ testimony about the circumstances surrounding the birth of their child in 2010, as the baby showed signs of injury when the baby and mother went to the hospital after the home birth.

The justices denied transfer to 21 cases, including three appeals filed by Delmas Sexton II, who is serving a 65-year sentence for the felony murder of an Allen County man.
 

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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT