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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT