Torn Achilles tendon is not city’s fault, COA rules

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A state statute providing immunity to municipalities for 20-year-old public work projects absolved a southern Indiana city from liability for an injury a man incurred when he stepped off a curb and into a sewer drain.

Brad Haskin was visiting the city of Madison for the Madison Regatta. While returning to his rental cottage one evening, he walked between the curb and a parked vehicle, stepped into a trough-shaped gutter and ruptured his Achilles tendon.

Haskin filed a complaint for damages against the city, alleging the municipality was negligent in designing, constructing and maintaining the drain. He also claimed the city failed to warn pedestrians of the potential hazard.

The trial court granted the city’s motion for summary judgment.

Before the Indiana Court of Appeals, the city of Madison argued it had immunity under Indiana Code 34-13-3-3(18), which protects municipalities from liability if the injury occurs at least 20 years after the public work was substantially redesigned. The city also noted the gutter was in good condition and Haskin’s injury was not caused by any deterioration in the drain.
Haskin countered that even under the Indiana statute, a governmental entity has a duty to provide public roadways in a reasonably safe condition. In addition, although the city had a lease agreement with Madison Regatta Inc., the city still had control over the street.

“To the extent Haskin claims the City was negligent in the design of the sewer drain and the City had a duty with respect to that claim, we agree with the City that, pursuant to Ind. Code 34-13-3-3-(18), the City was not required to ensure that the design of the curb and sewer drain, which were designed or redesigned at least twenty years prior to Haskin’s injury and were not altered by any resurfacing in 2002, was consistent with current practice or safety standards,” Judge Elaine Brown wrote in Brad Haskin v. City of Madison, Indiana, 39A05-1308-CT-422. “The City was not required to redesign the sewer drain in an effort to incorporate ever-evolving technology.”

The Court of Appeals also found under the terms of a resolution of the Board of Public Works and Safety of the city adopted June 18, 2008, and the lease agreement, Madison Regatta Inc. did have control of the street. The Regatta organization was in the best position to control pedestrian traffic and the condition of the property it leased from the city.  



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?