« Indiana Decisions - Transfer list for week ending June 4, 2004 | Main | Law - More on California Governor Schwarzenegger's Punitive Damages Proposal »

Friday, June 04, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Three Court of Appeals Decisions Today

Terry Clouse, et al. v. Noble County Drainage Board, et al. (6/4/04 IndCtApp) [ ]
Najam, Judge

In September 2002, the Noble County Drainage Board (“the Board”) issued its final order regarding maintenance of the Hosler Watershed System (“the Watershed”), in which the Board assessed periodic maintenance rates to be paid by persons who own land within the Watershed. Thereafter, Terry Clouse, Helen Clouse, Michael Clouse, Jacquelyn Clouse, Charles Eugene Akers, and Edna Akers (collectively, “the Petitioners”), owners of land within the Watershed, filed a Petition for Judicial Review of the Board’s final order under Indiana Code Section 36-9-27-106. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court issued findings and conclusions affirming the Board’s order. The Petitioners now appeal and present several arguments, which we consolidate into a single issue: whether the evidence supports the trial court’s determination that the Board complied with Indiana law when it assessed the periodic maintenance rates. We affirm.
Tim Godby v. State of Indiana (6/4/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]

Terry L. Williams v. Cingular Wireless (6/4/04 IndCtApp) [Torts]
Barnes, Judge

On March 27, 2002, Williams was involved in an automobile accident with Kellie Meagher. At the time of the collision, Meagher was allegedly using a cellular phone furnished by Cingular. * * * With respect to Cingular, the complaint alleged:
That at the time of this collision the defendant Meagher was utilizing a telephone furnished by Cingular Wireless. That Cingular Wireless was negligent in furnishing a cellular phone to Meagher when it knew, or should have known, that it would be used while the user operated a motor vehicle.
* * * Williams’ cause of action against Cingular sounds in negligence. In order to prevail on a claim of negligence the plaintiff must show: (1) duty owed to plaintiff by defendant; (2) breach of duty by allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; and (3) compensable injury proximately caused by defendant’s breach of duty.

Before reaching the questions of breach and injury, we must consider the threshold matter of whether Cingular owed a duty to Williams. Absent a duty, there can be no breach and, therefore, no recovery in negligence.

After examining "relationship", "foreseeability", and "public policy", the court concludes in a "balancing of duty factors":
The relationship between Cingular and Williams is remote. Although it is foreseeable that cellular phone use while driving may contribute to a car accident, it is not foreseeable that the sale of a phone to a customer will necessarily result in a car accident. Public policy weighs in favor of not imposing a duty on cellular phone companies for car accidents, even if cellular phones have the potential to distract drivers if misused.

Upon balancing the three factors mentioned in Webb, we conclude that Williams’ attenuated relationship with Cingular and the foregoing public policy considerations substantially outweigh any foreseeability of the harm at issue. Therefore, we must conclude that Cingular did not owe a duty of care to Williams.

Fees. Cingular requests an award of fees and costs in defending this appeal. * * * Conclusion. The trial court did not err by granting Cingular’s motion to dismiss for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted pursuant to Trial Rule 12(b)(6). However, Cingular has not convinced us that Williams’ appeal was frivolous, so we deny its motion for appellate costs and fees. We affirm.
CRONE, J., and MATHIAS, J., concur.

[More] The AP already is reporting this ruling, via a brief story headlined "Car wrecks not cell phone makers' fault."

[Update 6/5/04] The story is repeated with a few minor changes in the Indianapolis Star this morning. It includes this quote from the Court's opinion:

"Many items may be used by a person while driving," Barnes wrote. "There will be drivers who eat, apply makeup, or look at a map while driving. However, it would be unreasonable to find it sound public policy to impose a duty on the restaurant or cosmetic manufacturer or map designer to prevent such accidents."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 4, 2004 01:48 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions