Randolph County v. Chamness
| Decision Date | 22 January 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 18S02-0708-CV-306.,18S02-0708-CV-306. |
| Parties | RANDOLPH COUNTY, Indiana, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Leanne CHAMNESS, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James S. Stephenson, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.
Andrew P. Wirick, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellee.
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 18A02-0606-CV-493.
This case arose when a car carrying four young women left the roadway in Randolph County, and overturned and ejected one of its occupants in Delaware County, severely injuring her. The dispute so far has centered on which county has venue, the very sort of procedural wrangle that venue rules seek to avoid. We hold that when a vehicle leaves the pavement on one side of a county line and comes to rest on the other side, preferred venue lies in both counties.
On the night of April 2, 2004, appellee Leanne Chamness was riding with three other teenage women in a car traveling west on Randolph County Road 300 North at about sixty-five miles per hour, toward the Delaware County line. As the vehicle entered a curve at the county line, it left the roadway, overturned, and ejected Chamness, causing her severe injuries. The parties agree that the vehicle left the roadway in Randolph County and subsequently rolled and ejected Chamness in Delaware County.
On January 26, 2006, Chamness, a Randolph County resident, filed a claim for damages in Delaware Circuit Court against appellant Randolph County. She asserted that Randolph County had "negligently failed to properly construct, maintain, and supervise [County Road 300 North] and adjacent area." (Appellant's App. at 9-10.) Randolph County moved for a change of venue, contending that Randolph County is the only preferred venue under Ind. Trial Rule 75. Chamness contested the change of venue, arguing that the accident occurred in Delaware County for purposes of Rule 75(A)(3) because her injuries were sustained there, making Delaware County a preferred venue. The trial court heard arguments and denied the motion for change.
Randolph County sought this interlocutory appeal. The Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and reversed, interpreting Rule 75(A)(3) to mean preferred venue lies in the county in which the tortious conduct took place—in this case, Randolph County. Randolph County v. Chamness, 859 N.E.2d 795 (Ind.Ct.App.2007). We granted transfer and now affirm the trial court.
Trial Rule 75(A) sets forth the venue requirements for actions filed in Indiana courts. Generally, any case may be venued in any court in the state, subject to the right of an objecting party to request that the case be transferred to a preferred venue listed in Rule 75(A). There may be, and often is, more than one preferred venue for a given case. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co. v. Harter, 671 N.E.2d 861 (Ind.1996). If the action was filed in a preferred venue, change of venue cannot be granted. Ind. Trial Rule 75(A).
This case implicates two of Rule 75(A)'s preferred venue provisions. Subsection (5) provides that preferred venue lies in "the county where either one or more individual plaintiffs reside [or where] the principal office of a governmental organization is located . . . if one or more governmental organizations are included as defendants in the complaint." In this case, both the plaintiff and the defendant governmental entity reside in Randolph County, indisputably making Randolph County a preferred venue.1 Meanwhile, subsection (3) locates preferred venue in "the county where the accident or collision occurred, if the complaint includes a claim for injuries relating to the operation of a motor vehicle." No one involved in this proceeding disputes that the case involves a claim for damages from operating a motor vehicle.
Thus, the question presented is whether Delaware County also qualifies as a preferred venue, as "the county where the accident or collision occurred."
Like so many of our most durable legal doctrines, venue rules derive from English common law. Early English rules of procedure required a civil action to be "laid" in the county in which the cause of action arose. The only lasting reason for this rule was the convenience of all those involved in the litigation.
The rule had the virtue of not favoring either the plaintiff or the defendant. If events involved in an action had occurred in a county it was fair to try the action in that county. Witnesses, ordinarily would be found in the county and could attend court without great inconvenience. A view by the jury could be had. While it is never possible to say in advance what place will be convenient for the trial of a particular case, if a general rule of convenience is to be made for all cases, the rule requiring trial where the cause of action arose has very great merit.
Rule 75(A) reflects this thinking. Preferred venue is located in counties where information is readily available, where relevant land and personal property can be found, where witnesses can be easily brought to court, and where the litigants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeCola v. Cleveland Richard G 1/6
...in the state, subject to the right of an objecting party to request that the case be transferred to a preferred venue listed in Rule 75(A)." Id. may be, and often is, more than one preferred venue for a given case." Id. at 557. "If the action was filed in a preferred venue, change of venue ......
- Biedron v. Anonymous Physician 1
-
Yeager v. Morris
...venue. ¶ 23 The Supreme Court of Indiana considered nearly identical facts to the unusual case before this Court. Randolph County v. Chamness, 879 N.E.2d 555 (Ind.2008). A motor vehicle accident began in one county and the vehicle came to rest in a different county. The court held that eith......
-
Tooley v. Ghosh
...Rule 75(A).’ " Freeman v. Timberland Home Ctr., Inc. , 148 N.E.3d 321, 325-26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Randolph Cty. v. Chamness , 879 N.E.2d 555, 556 (Ind. 2008) ). Because Trial Rule 75 lists ten subsections defining preferred venue, multiple preferred venues can exist simultaneously......