Statement in tort claim does not prevent woman from trying to recover for injuries

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though a woman originally stated she did not suffer any injuries after her vehicle was rear ended by a police car, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled she can file a subsequent complaint against the municipality and the police department for personal injuries.

In City of Indianapolis v. Rachael Buschman, 49S02-1201-CT-598, the Supreme Court examined the amended statute pertaining to the Indiana Tort Claims Act and concluded the Legislature intentionally removed any requirement pertaining to specifying personal injuries. It affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in Buschman’s favor and remanded for further proceedings.

“It may well be true, as the City argues, that ‘public and legislative policy support requiring notice to political subdivision of the nature of the injury to allow them to investigate and prepare defenses,’ …and that Buschman could have amended her claim once she discovered her injuries,” Justice Mark Massa wrote for the court. “The statute, however, requires neither notice ‘of the nature of the injury’ nor an amended notice. If the legislature wishes to impose either or both of these requirements, it is free to do so. We, however, are not.”

Rachael Buschman was hit by an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer in July 2008. In submitting a tort claim notice to the city of Indianapolis, she included a statement that she had not sustained any injuries as a result of the automobile accident.

However, in July 2010, Buschman and her husband filed a complaint against the city and IMPD alleging she had suffered personal injuries because of the officer’s negligence.

The trial court granted the Buschmans’ motion for summary judgment.

On appeal, the city argued Buschman’s original tort claim did not comply with the requirement of the Indiana Tort Claims Act because it noted she has suffered no injuries.

The Indiana Court of Appeals agreed. It reversed the trial court, finding Buschman’s notice did not substantially comply with the requirements of the ITCA.

However, the Supreme Court found Buschman complied with the requirements outlined in Collier V. Prater, 544 N.E.2nd 497, 498 (Ind. 1989): The notice was filed timely, it informed the city that she intended to pursue a claim and it contained details about the accident.

“Although the notice also stated ‘No injuries,’ we note the statute no longer requires any statement regarding injuries, and we do not believe the General Assembly intended to penalize claimants for including information – even information that is ultimately found to be inaccurate – beyond what the statute requires,” Massa wrote.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?