IBJNews

Judge allows class in suit against state tort law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal judge certified all of the victims of the Indiana State Fair concert stage collapse into a single class Wednesday in a lawsuit challenging a law that caps the state's liability at $5 million, but she concluded the plaintiffs are unlikely to win the challenge.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis allows the estates of three of the seven people killed in the Aug. 13 collapse to pursue their federal constitutional challenge to Indiana's tort claim law, which caps the state's financial liability at $700,000 per victim and a total of $5 million for all victims.

Besides the seven people killed in the collapse before a concert by the country duo Sugarland, more than 40 other victims also suffered physical injuries, and many more claim they were hurt in other ways.

Barker denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would prevent any payouts from the $5 million fund to victims of the collapse, saying they had not shown they are likely to win the case, a required step before federal preliminary injunctions are granted.

"We cannot conclude that ... plaintiffs are clearly 'likely' to succeed on their assertion that Indiana's tort claims damages caps violate the federal Constitution," Barker wrote in a 26-page ruling.

However, plaintiffs' attorney Kenneth J. Allen of Valparaiso saw the ruling as a clear victory in his clients' bid to get the Indiana tort claims law thrown out. Instead of Indiana-employed judges deciding the constitutionality of the law, it will be federal judges, he said.

"Challenging the tort claim limits in federal court gives us a great opportunity for fair and impartial review not colored by the fact that the state treasury is involved or that state employees need to decide whether the state needs to pay more money," Allen said in a telephone interview.

He predicted the lawsuit citing the 14th Amendment protections to due process and equal protection eventually would go before the U.S. Supreme Court and that the Indiana law would receive the scrutiny it deserves.

"We think ultimately, if the U.S. Supreme Court looks at it in a rational light, it will be overturned," Allen said.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller, named as a defendant in the lawsuit with Gov. Mitch Daniels, said his office was working with about 30 law firms, a mediator, and victim compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg to split up the $5 million "fairly and equitably, and we hope to conclude the settlement process soon."

"We still are reviewing the Court's ruling, but it allows the State to continue negotiations with more than 100 claimants who applied for expedited settlement payments from the state's Tort Claim Fund," Zoeller said in a statement.

Allen represents the estates of Tammy Jean VanDam of Wanatah, Christina Santiago of Chicago, and Alina Bigjohny of Fort Wayne, and three other women who survived when the stage and some of its rigging collapsed after a wind gust of at least 60 mph that swept through the state fairgrounds on Indianapolis' north side.

A separate lawsuit filed Tuesday in Marion Superior Court in Indianapolis on behalf of the estates of the four other people who died and 44 other victims seeks unspecified damages from Sugarland, producers, stage riggers and others associated with the concert.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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 IBJ 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
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT