Knotts v. State, 371A52
| Decision Date | 01 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 371A52,371A52,1 |
| Citation | 274 N.E.2d 400 |
| Parties | Harry F. KNOTTS, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
William A. Freihofer, James A. Schmidt, Indianapolis, for appellant; Freihofer & Brown, Indianapolis, of counsel.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Plaintiff filed a complaint in Marion County Superior Court No. 6, against the City of Indianapolis seeking $100,000 in damages as a result of personal injuries suffered in a fall on a crosswalk in the City of Indianapolis. The complaint alleged that plaintiff's fall and injuries were the result of the negligent state of repair of the crosswalk. Thereafter plaintiff filed an amended complaint joining the State of Indiana, the appellee in this appeal, as an additional party-defendant. Pursuant to Rule TR. 12(B), Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure (1970), the state filed its motion to dismiss, asserting that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the person of the State of Indiana, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, and that plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court overruled the first two counts of the motion to dismiss, but sustained the third, and thereby dismissed the complaint as to both defendants. Subsequently, plaintiff filed a motion to reinstate the City of Indianapolis as a party-defendant, which was granted. Plaintiff then timely filed his motion to correct errors, alleging that the trial court's action in dismissing the complaint as to the State of Indiana was contrary to law. Said motion was overruled.
The record reveals that plaintiff's fall occurred on a crosswalk at the intersection of Market Street and Monument Circle, in Indianapolis. As plaintiff correctly states, Monument Circle, (or Governor's Circle, as it is designated in the Constitution), is a part of the state highway system, and as such the State of Indiana is responsible for its repair and maintenance. IC 1971, 8-12-11-1, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 36-2941 (Burns 1970).
Assuming the facts as stated in plaintiff's complaint to be true, the sole question presented by this appeal is whether or not the state enjoys immunity from liability for personal injuries suffered as the result of its negligence in maintaining and repairing state highways. This court was recently confronted with precisely the same question of law in Campbell v. State (1971), Ind.App., 269 N.E.2d 765. 1 In Campbell, supra, it was held that while state immunity for proprietary functions has been abrogated, the state still enjoys immunity while in the performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Campbell v. State
...of Appeals and were consolidated upon transfer to the Supreme Court. See opinions of the Appellant Court reported in 269 N.E.2d 765 and 274 N.E.2d 400. In the Campbell case the appellants sustained personal injuries as a result of a head-on collision with an automobile traveling in appellan......