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

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. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT