Stapinski v. Walsh Const. Co., Inc., 1079S285
Decision Date | 16 October 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 1079S285,1079S285 |
Citation | 395 N.E.2d 1251,272 Ind. 6 |
Parties | Michael L. STAPINSKI, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. WALSH CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., Appellee (Defendant below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Saul I. Ruman, Hammond, for appellant.
Richard R. McDowell, Cadick, Burns, Duck & Peterson, Indianapolis, for appellee.
This case is before this Court on the petition to transfer of defendant-appellee, Walsh Construction Co., Inc.Appellee Walsh prevailed at trial when the trial court granted Walsh's motion for summary judgment.Plaintiff-appellant, Michael L. Stapinski, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals, Third District, and that Court reversed.Stapinski v. Walsh Construction Co., Inc., (1978) Ind.App., 383 N.E.2d 473.We grant transfer and vacate the opinion of the Court of Appeals.
The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in granting Walsh's motion for summary judgment.
The following are the facts giving rise to this dispute as gleaned from Judge Staton's majority opinion and Judge Hoffman's dissenting opinion:
"For purposes of the summary judgment motionthe parties agreed that the front universal joint was missing a grease cap, and that failure to grease the joint caused the front drive shaft to break and injure appellant."383 N.E.2d at 478-9.
In granting summary judgment the trial court issued the following order:
" 'ALL OF WHICH IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court this 19th day of September, 1975.' "383 N.E.2d at 474-5.
We hold that the Court of Appeals erroneously decided a new question of law when it held that a non-dealer seller and former owner-operator of a used motor vehicle can be liable for personal injury to a bystander under the facts of this case.Furthermore, the Court of Appeals erroneously applied the Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 388(1965) to the facts in the case at bar.
Summary judgment shall be rendered:
"if the pleadings, depositions, answer to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits and testimony, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."Ind. R. Tr. P. 56(C).
Both Judge Staton and Judge Hoffman correctly state the applicable procedure in determining whether a genuine issue of fact exists.That is, the facts as set forth by the party opposing the motion must be taken as true and all doubts are to be resolved against the party seeking summary judgment.Stapinski v. Walsh Construction Co., Inc., supra;Hayes v. Second National Bank of Richmond, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 647;Union State Bank v. Williams, (1976) Ind.App., 348 N.E.2d 683.We are cognizant of the fact that issues of negligence are not ordinarily susceptible of summary adjudication.Verplank v. Commercial Bank of Crown Point, (1969)145 Ind.App. 324, 251 N.E.2d 52.However, the disposition of this...
To continue reading
Request your trialUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete case access with no limitations or restrictions
-
AI-generated case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Comprehensive legal database spanning 100+ countries and all 50 states
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Verified citations and treatment with CERT citator technology

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Thiele v. Faygo Beverage, Inc.
...injury to others." Stapinski v. Walsh Construction Co. (1978), Ind.App., 383 N.E.2d 473, 476, vacated on other grounds, (1979) 272 Ind. 6, 395 N.E.2d 1251 (vacated on grounds of intervening cause); see Lake Shore & Mich. S. Ry. Co. v. Brown (1908) 41 Ind.App. 435, 84 N.E. 25. The duty of re......
-
Bailey v. Lewis Farm, Inc.
...much. 7. Decisions from other jurisdictions have disallowed claims similar to the one alleged by plaintiff. Stapinski v. Walsh Constr. Co., Inc., 272 Ind. 6, 395 N.E.2d 1251 (1979) (affirming summary judgment against the plaintiff in a negligence action against the prior owner of a vehicle ......
-
Abex Corp. v. Vehling
...must be accepted as true and any doubt must be resolved against the proponent of the summary judgment. Stapinski v. Walsh Const. Co., Inc. (1979) Ind., 395 N.E.2d 1251, 1253. On June 17, 1977, Abex's predecessor, Stanray Corporation, filed suit against R.B. for breach of a written sale agre......
-
Hiatt v. Brown
...Specialists, Inc. (1978), 58 Ill.App.3d 133, 15 Ill.Dec. 491, 373 N.E.2d 837. Brown mistakenly relies on Stapinski v. Walsh Construction Co. (1979) Ind., 395 N.E.2d 1251, claiming the rule in that case would lead us to a different In Stapinski the Supreme Court refused to hold liable the no......