« Ind. Gov't. - More on: Could this be a coincidence? | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 today (and 6 NFP) »

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Ind. Decisions - "You can't have your cake and eat it too" - perhaps

Patrick Guinane of the NWI Tmes writes today on yesterday's 3-2 ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court in the case of Porter County Sheriff Department v. Rita J. and Douglas Guzorek (ILB entry here). Some quotes:

INDIANAPOLIS | A woman injured in a 2000 car accident involving a Porter County sheriff's deputy can continue her lawsuit against the department, a divided Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

Officer Joseph Falatic was returning from a residential alarm call on Aug. 11, 2000, when his squad car rear-ended a vehicle driven by Rita Guzorek, of San Pierre in Starke County.

Guzorek sued Falatic. But a Porter County judge ruled the officer couldn't be held personally responsible for an accident that occurred during the course of duty.

Guzorek tried to expand the suit to the Porter County Sheriff's Department. But a LaPorte County judge and the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled she failed to act within the two year statute of limitations.

The Supreme Court reversed that ruling Tuesday in a 3-2 decision that sends the case back to LaPorte County and puts the Sheriff's Department on the hook for up to $300,000 in damages. The two sides are negotiating an out-of-court settlement, said Sharon Stanzione, the Merrillville attorney representing the department.

Stanzione said Guzorek's original suit against Falatic was an attempted end-run around a $300,000 state cap on damage awards against government agencies and employees. If Guzorek wanted to sue the Sheriff's Department, Stanzione said, she should have done so within the two-year time limit.

"You can't have your cake and eat it too," Stanzione said.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard made a similar argument in a four-page dissent that argues the majority Supreme Court opinion "swims upstream" by presuming Guzorek made a "mistake of identity" by initially suing only Falatic.

"Under such reasoning, virtually everyone who chooses to name a given defendant and later finds the choice an unhappy one could lay legitimate claim to 'mistake of identity,'" Shepard wrote.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 29, 2006 06:45 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions