IBJNews

Lawsuit by fair victims challenges Indiana's $5M tort cap

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Indiana law that caps the state's liability for damages at $5 million for a single event violates the U.S. and state constitutions and should be thrown out, six plaintiffs suing over the deadly collapse of an Indiana State Fair stage argue in a lawsuit filed Monday.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis on behalf of the estates of three of the seven people killed in the Aug. 13 collapse and three others who were injured seeks class-action status on behalf as many as 70 plaintiffs. The lawsuit said the state liability cap violates the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment as well as federal laws and the Indiana Constitution.

"If the people who caused the harm are held to account for it, then I guarantee you they will take the safety measures next time to prevent it," said attorney Kenneth J. Allen of Valparaiso, who represents the plaintiffs.

"On the other hand, if they're protected from being held to account, as they are with this kind of cap on damages, then they're not going to take those safety measures and the same kind of thing will happen again and again," Allen said.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller issued a statement saying his office will defend the liability cap. It has brought in victim compensation expert Kenneth Feinberg to help distribute the $5 million to victims "fairly and equitably."

"We will not wait for litigation in order to move forward in providing compensation to victims," Zoeller said.

The accident happened as fairgoers awaited the scheduled start of a concert by country music duo Sugarland. Stage riggings collapsed as high winds swept into Indianapolis ahead of a severe storm.

Zoeller's office has received notice of more than 20 lawsuits filed on behalf of the seven victims killed and more than 40 other people who were injured. Zoeller has asked them and their families to file a tort claim form by Nov. 1 to seek a portion of the $5 million. The form can be found at here.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the estates of Tammy Jean Vandam of Wanatah and her partner, Janeen Beth Urschel; Christina Santiago of Chicago and her partner, Alisha Brennon; Alina Bigjohny of Fort Wayne; and Tamara Porter of Hancock County. Porter, Urschel and Brennon were injured when the stage and some of its rigging collapsed amid high winds that swept through the state fairgrounds on Indianapolis' north side.

Separately from the $5 million state liability cap, the State Fair Commission has approved payouts from a relief fund of $35,000 to the families of the seven people killed, $25,000 to injured concertgoers if they were hospitalized at least 10 days; $7,500 if they were hospitalized four to nine days; and $3,000 to those hospitalized for one to three days.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • acts of GOD
    Aren't high winds before a huge storm part of an act of GOD and not covered. They should be glad they are getting that.

    I believe the $5 million limit should be lowered; since it is a taxpayer burden, etc.

    Compensate them for what they have insured themselves for; which is most likely much lower.
  • Responsibility
    A big wind knocked down the stage. The Farris Wheel didn't fall down, cars weren't overturned, no telephone polls down, no trees uprooted, no bridges fell, no big power outages, no businesses closed, and the roofs remained on all the fairground buildings. A number of people were killed and quite a bunch were hurt.
    All expenses should be paid for by the responsible parties. There is really no excuse for those responsible to not fully take care of those injured. I don't like frivolous law suites any more than the next guy, but it is imperative that the responsible parties have a huge incentive to not be so negligent in the future, OR are no longer allowed to be in a position to screw up this bad again.
  • JEB wrote hostile comment
    JEB - you know the horrific and hostile comments your previously wrote that were taken down - wishing the deaths of others who happen to be gay, in addition to taking delight in the death being discussed. Differing views are welcome - but not the spewing hostility that you posted, and IBJ appropriately removed.
  • Meany Attorneys
    If these lawsuits fail...the attorneys that brought them should be fined the amount that the tax payers will have to pay. This might slow down the moronic lawsuits. Dear IBJ, I hope I did not offend you or your readers. Please do not take my post down, as I did not call the attorneys what I should have called them.
  • LIfe Insurance
    Did any of the individuals that past away, from this storm have life insurance? Are the responsible tax payers suppose to pay for their life insurance and pay for less responsible people when it storms, and someone is injured or killed? I think our friend from Chicago spends more time protesting than working, therefore, thinks it has found a way to obtain a free ride. If I offend anyone...I do apologize profusely for stating my opinion. Please IBJ, don't remove my post...I did not say anything bad about the girl who lost her girlfriend, and her lawsuit against our state because we do not recognize gay marriage...just like her state!!!!!!!! AND our Nation!!!!!!!
  • Speak your mind
    Do not say what is really on your mind when posting comments on the IBJ if you are not gay, you are a christian, you are a republican, and you dissagree with being "politically correct". If you do, the IBJ will take your comments down. Now, if you are gay, a dumbocrat, and do not believe in God, please feel free to send your comments as they will be posted for sure!
  • Not Held to Account?
    "if they're protected from being held to account, as they are with this kind of cap on damages"...wait a minute! The state of Indiana (meaning us taxpayers)is going to get hit for $5Mil for something that at least arguably is not the state's fault. It is ludicrous some self-interested lawyer to assert that the state engages in a pattern of either negligently or intentionally endangering the lives of its citizens because its money damages are capped at a "paltry" $5 Mil per occurence.
    • Lawsuit
      Is there no limit? So, if a meteor drops out of the sky, does Ken Nunn sue God? So, now the lawyer dudes want to make all the taxpayers responsible for the tragic deaths and injury.

      Sure, if it were my family, I would want to seek recompense, but not from my neighbor.

      Stop the madness.......
      • Say What?
        Call me crazy, but aren't laws written by the legislature? Why wouldn't ken allen just go to the legislature? Oh yeah, thats right, he wouldn't get his $100,000 of free publicity from the newspapers. Please quit giving this dude a forum for nonesense.

      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