ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer in three cases - David Michael Green v. State of Indiana; Beth Palmer Kopczynski and Alisha Palmer v. David B. and Peggy L. Barger; and Richard U. and Delores J. Pflanz v. Merrill Foster, et al.

In Green v. State, 45A05-0612-CR-708, Green appealed his conviction and sentence for two counts of felony murder, claiming his victim's death was out of self-defense and an accident. The Court of Appeals affirmed the state presented sufficient evidence to prove Green did not murder his victim, who was pregnant, out of self-defense and accident.

Green also appealed the admission of his pretrial statement to police and argued the imposition of consecutive sentences was inappropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court finding that Green's statement to police would be admissible because he had not been charged with a crime at the time of the statement nor was he engaged in plea negotiations. The Court of Appeals also ruled Green's consecutive sentence was appropriate because of the nature of the crime and multiple victims.

In Beth Palmer Kopczynski and Alisha Palmer v. David B. and Peggy L. Barger, 88A05-0612-CV-703, Kopczynski and her minor daughter, Alisha, appealed the trial court grant of summary judgment in favor of the Bargers on their claims for negligence and premises liability, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Palmers claimed there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the Bargers were negligent in letting Alisha play unsupervised on their trampoline, as well as the Bargers should be liable for Alisha's knee injury while on the trampoline because it was an attractive nuisance.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment because Alisha was invited to play on the trampoline by the Bargers' young son, who lacked the authority to invite her to play on it. Alisha was determined to be trespassing when she came on the Bargers' property to play on the trampoline, and there is no evidence of willful or wanton conduct by the Bargers.

On their attractive nuisance claim, the Court of Appeals ruled the Palmers failed to show any evidence establishing the trampoline was particularly dangerous to children and that they would not comprehend the danger, nor did they show any evidence that the Bargers knew children may trespass on their property and be injured by the trampoline.

In Richard U. and Delores J. Pflanz v. Merrill Foster, et al., 36A01-0412-CT-36, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision to dismiss the Pflanzes' action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Pflanzes appealed, claiming the trial court erred in determining they did not bring their claim within the applicable statute of limitations.

The Pflanzes purchased Foster's property, where he used to own a Sunoco gas station, and ran a Big O Tires of Seymour on the site. The Pflanzes claim they never knew there were any environmental issues with the site when the Indiana Department of Environmental Management discovered underground storage tanks were causing contamination. The Pflanzes brought a suit against Foster, alleging waste and negligence and sought contribution, attorney fees, and cost for environmental liability; the Pflanzes spent more than $100,000 to clean the site.

The Pflanzes purchased the property in 1978 and the contamination was not discovered until 2001. They argue that the applicable 10-year statute of limitations did not begin until the discovery of contamination or payment of remediation. The Indiana Supreme Court previously ruled that Indiana Code 13-23-13-8, which allows a plaintiff to receive contribution from a previous owner or operator of underground storage tanks if a release occurred during that individual's ownership or operation, has a 10-year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court also held the statute of limitations is discovery based and begins to run once the claimant knew or, through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known of the damage.

The trial court found that the Pflanzes knew or through exercise of reasonable diligence should have known about the onsite contamination by 1991, when amendments were made to the 1987 Indiana legislation enacted concerning underground storage tanks. The Pflanzes took no action to discover if the tanks on the property were leaking.
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. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT