Indiana State Police v. May
Decision Date | 23 October 1984 |
Docket Number | No. 1-584A119,1-584A119 |
Citation | 469 N.E.2d 1183 |
Parties | INDIANA STATE POLICE, c/o John T. Shettle, Superintendent, and State of Indiana, Defendants-Appellants, v. Roger MAY and Jackie May, Plaintiffs-Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Kenneth M. Wahnsiedler, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for defendants-appellants.
Ronald J. Hocker, Vevay, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Defendant-appellant, State of Indiana (State), appeals a judgment entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellees, Roger May and Jackie May (Mays), in the Switzerland Superior Court in Mays' action for damages to their home.
We reverse.
Fleeing murder suspect, Raymond McClellan took refuge in Mays' home with three hostages, including Roger May. An Indiana State Police SWAT team surrounded the home, fired cannisters of tear gas into it, caused the hostages to be released, and captured McClellan, but in the process damaged the May home. The damage consisted of fire damage and tear gas odor. The jury awarded the Mays $2,500.00 in damages.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the State is immune from liability under the immunity section of the Tort Claims Act, IND. CODE 34-4-16.5-3(7), which grants immunity to a public body for torts committed while enforcing a law.
We are of the opinion that Seymour National Bank v. State, (1981) Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1223, on reh. 428 N.E.2d 203, indicates the results to be reached here. In Seymour, a State Trooper, while pursuing a fleeing suspect at high speed, was involved in an accident fatal to a third party. The Supreme Court held that the State was immune from suit under IND. CODE 34-4-16.5-3(7). Seymour, supra, at 1226. See also Livingston v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, (1979) Ind.App., 398 N.E.2d 1302 (transfer denied) (Tort Claims Act grants immunity in malicious prosecution action); Jacobs v. City of Columbus, (1983) Ind.App., 454 N.E.2d 1253 (transfer denied) We find no distinguishing characteristics in this case which would remove it from the rule enunciated in the above authorities.
Mays' attempt to distinguish Seymour on the basis of negligence versus intentional tort is without merit. We point out that intentional conduct was involved in the malicious prosecution suit and the defamation suit. Mays' further argument, citing eminent domain cases, that the acts of the police amount to a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Customer Co. v. City of Sacramento, S035410
...when police fired tear gas into the plaintiff's home to capture a felony suspect who had taken refuge there (Indiana State Police v. May (Ind.Ct.App.1984) 469 N.E.2d 1183, 1184, disapproved on other grounds in Tittle v. Mahan (Ind.1991) 582 N.E.2d 796, 800), when a volunteer's motor vehicle......
-
Quakenbush v. Lackey
...v. Swaggerty (1987), Ind.App., 507 N.E.2d 649 (collision when officer ran red light on way to assist in a chase); Indiana State Police v. May (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1183 (canisters of tear gas fired into citizen's home to apprehend fleeing In their dissents to Seymour, Justices DeBrul......
-
Kelley v. Story County Sheriff
...for fish kill and damage to pond when police drained pond on plaintiff's property in search of murder victim); Indiana State Police v. May, 469 N.E.2d 1183, 1184 (Ind.Ct.App.1984) (concluding that damage caused to homeowner's property by police officers trying to apprehend murder suspect wh......
-
Tittle v. Mahan
...out of the firing of tear gas canisters into a house by police in order to capture a fleeing murder suspect, Indiana State Police v. May (1984), Ind.App., 469 N.E.2d 1183, rehearing denied; a claim for negligence for the actions of a police officer allowing a prisoner whom she was guarding ......