Supreme Court grants 6 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted six transfers Sept. 11, including a case of first impression involving a suit filed by a pathological gambler against a riverboat casino.

In Caesars Riverboat Casino LLC v. Genevieve M. Kephart, No. 31A01-0711-CV-530, a split Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that casinos don't have a common law duty to protect compulsive gamblers from themselves, and aren't required to refrain from trying to entice those people into their establishments. The majority decided Genevieve Kephart couldn't recover from a private negligence action against the riverboat casino; she argued the casino enticed her with a free hotel room, drinks, and meals, and took advantage of her condition as a pathological gambler.

Judge Terry Crone dissented because he believed common law duty should be imposed because of the casino's conduct in luring her to the casino with freebies and it should have excluded her from its marketing materials because it likely knew of her condition.

In Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund v. Gary Patrick, No. 49A02-0807-CV-614, the Court of Appeals examined previous caselaw to clarify claims for emotional distress brought as part of the Wrongful Death Statute or part of the Medical Malpractice Act. The Indiana Patient's Compensation fund had appealed the trial court's judgment in favor of Gary Patrick in his independent claim for emotional distress damages in conjunction with the Adult Wrongful Death Statute following the death of his adult son.

The appellate court ruled Patrick's assertion for damages as a bystander was pursuant to Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000), and because he dealt with the aftermath of the malpractice, he was able to bring an independent claim for damages for emotional distress in conjunction with his claim under the Adult Wrongful Death Statute.

In Ford Motor Co. and TRW Vehicle Safety Systems, Inc. v. Sally Moore, personal representative of the estate of Daniel A. Moore, No. 73A05-0710-CV-552, the majority of Court of Appeals' judges reversed a jury verdict in favor of Sally Moore in the estate's product negligence claim because it ruled the estate didn't present sufficient evidence to establish its claim.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented because she thought the estate presented sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded a safer and feasible alternative to the conventional seatbelt was available that would have cost-effectively improved aggregate safety in all types of crashes.

Sally Moore brought the suit following the death of Daniel Moore in which he was ejected from his Ford Explorer after his car blew a tire, even though he was wearing a properly fastened seatbelt made by TRW.

In Gabino Gonzalez v. State of Indiana, No. 82A01-0809-CR-406, the Court of Appeals reversed Gabino Gonzalez's criminal mischief and operating while intoxicated convictions and remanded for a new trial because the court ruled a letter he wrote while trying to negotiate a plea agreement shouldn't have been admitted at trial. The appellate court determined the letter was a privileged communication that should not have been admitted based on Indiana Code Section 35-35-3-4 and Ind. Evidence Rule 410.

In Kevin S. Varner v. Indiana Parole Board, No. 45A04-0812-CR-693, the appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of Kevin Varner's pro se action for mandate requiring the Indiana Parole Board to determine his eligibility based on a vote of all five board members. Only four of the five board members voted on whether Varner should be granted parole and the vote resulted in a tie. The trial court dismissed his action believing it had no jurisdiction over the parole board.

Under the prescreening statutes, the appellate court ruled based on previous caselaw that his mandate action states a claim upon which relief can be granted. His action is based on a clear, statutory requirement and his relief can be granted by having the full, five-member board vote on his eligibility for parole. The Court of Appeals issued a mandate that all five members cast their vote on Varner's parole eligibility.

In Stephan M. Gallagher v. State of Indiana, No. 15A04-0806-CR-326, the Court of Appeals reversed Stephan Gallagher's felony conviction of dealing in a schedule II substance and remanded for re-sentencing as a Class B felony. The appellate court ordered the reduced sentence because no children were present at 3 a.m., and as a matter of law, the drug transaction that was within 1,000 feet of a school was brief. The state also failed to rebut Gallagher's defense. The Court of Appeals also affirmed the admittance as evidence an audio recording of the drug transaction.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.