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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT