Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear oral argument in two cases on June 5, one involving zoning for a recycling facility and the other regarding whether a resident’s landscaping contributed to a crash in Miami County.
At 9 a.m., the court will hear the case Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc., 23A-MI-1729.
Prior to the case being filed, the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals granted a conditional-use permit to Bedford Recycling, Inc. for the construction of a scrap-metal recycling facility. But the board later revoked the permit, saying it made an error of law in granting the permit because the facts known at the time showed that the business’s proposed project didn’t meet requirements for the conditional use, according to court documents.
Bedford Recycling requested judicial review, and Monroe Circuit Court reversed the revocation of the permit, saying the board revoked the permit based on new information and a change of reasoning. However, the trial court did not ultimately determine whether the board made an error of law by granting the permit.
The trial court argued that even if the board made an error of law when it granted the permit, that wasn’t their reason for revoking it.
The board appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals which reversed the trial court’s decision, saying the trial court erred when it looked beyond the explanation the board gave to determine what prompted the revocation.
The appellate court also held that the board made an error of law by granting the permit. According to Essroc Cement Corp. v. Clark County Board of Zoning Appeals, 122 N.E.3d 881, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), an administrative agency can change a final decision if it recognizes its own error of law.
Bedford Recycling has now petitioned the state’s high court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
At 10:10 a.m., the court will hear Yerano Martinez and Jessica Martinez v. Jeffrey Smith, Board of Commissioners for Miami County, Miami County Highway Department, and State of Indiana, 24A-CT-1272.
In October 2019, appellant Yerano Martinez drove through a stop sign and collided with another vehicle at a four-way intersection in Miami County, court documents state.
Martinez said he didn’t see the stop sign at the intersection because it was obstructed by a bush. He sued the landowner, alleging negligent maintenance of the bush.
The landowner argued that landowners have no duty to protect motorists from conditions that remain on their property and don’t intrude upon a roadway.
Marion Superior Court agreed and granted summary judgment in the landowner’s favor.
On appeal, Martinez argued that landowners’ duties extend beyond the road to include visual obstruction’s within the county’s right-of-way easement, and though the bush didn’t physically intrude, it nonetheless “visited itself” upon the road by impacting traffic, citing Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 173 N.E.3d 1031 (Ind. 2021). He further argued that public policy concerns should impose a duty where visual obstructions endanger motorist safety, according to court documents.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to the landowner, stating that because the bush did not extend into the road, the landowner did not owe a duty of care to Martinez as a matter of law, court documents state.
Martinez has petitioned the state’s high court to accept jurisdiction over his appeal.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.