« Ind. Decisions - The opinion effectively denying public access to legislative emails, CAC v. Indiana House, is now final | Main | Ind. Gov't. - "Indiana will pick new attorney general this year: Elkhart Co prosecutor, former Lake Co judge on ballot" »
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 4 opinion(s) today (and 11 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (4):
In Sony DADC US Inc. and Bradley J. Brown v. Mark Thompson , a 17-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:
This case originates from a complaint filed by Mark Thompson (“Thompson”) alleging negligence and vicarious liability against Bradley J. Brown (“Brown”) and his employer, Sony DADC US Inc. (“Sony”). Thompson worked as a security guard for Securitas, a private contractor, and provided building security for Sony at its Terre Haute, Indiana facility. While walking across the parking lot at Sony on March 23, 2012, Thompson was struck by a car driven by Brown, who had clocked out for the day, but had yet to leave the Sony property because he was planning to place personal items in the recycling area provided by Sony. In a pretrial order, the trial court found as a matter of law that Sony was vicariously liable for Thompson’s injuries because Brown was within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. Following a jury trial, Sony appeals the trial court’s order, raising the following restated and consolidated issues for our review:In City of Indianapolis v. Bradford Bentley, a 17-page opinion with a separate concurring opinion, Judge Baker writes:
I. Whether the trial court erred when it denied Sony’s motion for summary judgment and granted Thompson’s motion for partial summary judgment as to the issue of whether Brown was acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident; and
II. Whether the trial court erred in allowing Thompson to present a claim for lost earning opportunity and in giving a jury instruction on lost earning capacity. * * *
We, therefore, conclude that the designated evidence presented genuine issues of material fact as to whether Brown was acting in the scope of his employment at the time of the accident with Thompson. The trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Thompson on this issue, and we remand to the trial court for a new trial, where the issue of vicarious liability is presented to the jury. Reversed and remanded.
An Indianapolis Police sergeant was demoted to patrol officer. He sought judicial review of the demotion. During the litigation, the City of Indianapolis (the City) filed the required transcript over six months late and its summary judgment response and designated evidence over four months late. The trial court struck all of the untimely filed documents and found in favor of the officer. The City now appeals. Finding no error, we affirm. * * *In Jack A. Enslen v. Area Plan Commission of Grant County Indiana, a 10-page opinion, Judge Altice writes:
Brown, J., concurs.
May, J., concurs in result with a separate opinion. [which begins, at p. 10] I agree that we must affirm the trial court’s decision to reinstate Officer Bentley with back pay because the City filed its transcript too late. However, I write separately to explain why I believe our resolution of this matter of first impression is correct. * * *
[W]hen the governmental agency acting as the defendant does not do what it is required by law to do when an individual appeals an administrative board decision, the trial court should have authority to levy appropriate sanctions, including ordering entry of a result opposite that reached by the administrative board. Therefore, I respectfully concur in result.
A home owned by Jack Enslen has been uninhabitable, and indeed uninhabited, since 2002. He obtained building permits in 2009 and 2012 with the stated intention of bringing the home up to code, but no actual work was ever started on the property due to Enslen’s continued lack of finances. The Grant County Area Plan Commission (the APC) eventually filed a complaint for civil zoning violation against Enslen. Following a bench trial, the trial court issued an order directing Enslen to raze the structure within thirty days. Enslen asserts a number of arguments on appeal that all boil down to a claim that the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous. We affirm.In Jason L. Forshee v. State of Indiana , a 10-page opinion, Judge Kirsch writes:
Jason L. Forshee (“Forshee”) pleaded guilty to Class C felony dangerous control of a child, and at the sentencing hearing, the trial court identified aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then sentenced Forshee to four years of incarceration, with six months suspended. Forshee appeals and raises the following restated issue: whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Forshee because it considered as an aggravating circumstance that the victim was in Forshee’s “care, custody, or control,” which was an element of a dismissed charge. We affirm.NFP civil decisions today (3):
NFP criminal decisions today (8):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 13, 2016 11:34 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions