Court Opinion

ID: 9897236
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:04.240249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:36.065163
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                       Oct 31 2023, 10:20 am

                                                                            CLERK
                                                                        Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                           Court of Appeals
                                                                             and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita                                         Stephen W. Cook
Indiana Attorney General                                   S. Matthew Cook
                                                           Cook & Cook
Natalie F. Weiss
                                                           Noblesville, Indiana
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

State of Indiana,                                          October 31, 2023
Appellant-Defendant,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-CT-1693
        and                                                Interlocutory Appeal from the
                                                           Hamilton Superior Court
City of Fishers,
                                                           The Honorable Michael A. Casati,
Defendant,                                                 Judge

        v.                                                 Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           29D01-1703-CT-2257

Jennifer Diane Lucas, by Diane
Zeiss Nevitt, Guardian,
Appellee-Plaintiff

                                Opinion by Judge Crone
                       Chief Judge Altice and Judge Tavitas concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                            Page 1 of 11
      Crone, Judge.

      Case Summary
[1]   Jennifer Diane Lucas was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident on

      Interstate 69 (I-69) in Fishers. Lucas, by guardian Diane Zeiss Nevitt, filed a

      complaint against several other motorists, the City of Fishers, and the State of

      Indiana, alleging in pertinent part that her injuries resulted from the State’s

      negligent redesign of I-69 at the accident site. The State filed a motion for

      summary judgment, asserting that it is entitled to immunity under the Indiana

      Tort Claims Act (ITCA) because its redesign of I-69 was a discretionary

      function. The trial court denied the State’s motion, finding that the ITCA’s

      discretionary function immunity provision does not apply to Lucas’s negligent

      redesign claim. On appeal, the State argues that this ruling is erroneous. We

      disagree and therefore affirm the trial court.

      Facts and Procedural History 1
[2]   Around 5:30 a.m. on July 17, 2015, Lucas was driving southbound on I-69 near

      mile marker 203 in Fishers. The State had redesigned that stretch of highway in

      2012 to reduce congestion. During the redesign process, a fourth lane was

      added, and an exception was granted to allow for a five-foot-wide left shoulder,

      1
        We heard oral argument at Notre Dame Law School on October 5, 2023, as part of our Appeals on Wheels
      program. We thank the school’s administration, faculty, and staff for their support and hospitality, counsel
      for their capable advocacy, and the students for their enthusiastic participation in the post-argument question-
      and-answer session.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                               Page 2 of 11
      instead of the prescribed minimum of ten feet. The left shoulder was separated

      from northbound I-69 by a concrete barrier.

[3]   Lucas was in the next-to-leftmost lane. Ahead of Lucas, Nader Botros’s vehicle

      collided with Rebecca Swinford’s vehicle. Botros’s vehicle came to rest on the

      left shoulder against the concrete barrier. Due to the shoulder’s narrowness,

      Botros’s vehicle was partially in the leftmost travel lane. Swinford’s vehicle

      stopped briefly on the right shoulder and left the scene. Lucas slowed down,

      activated her emergency flashers, and stopped behind Botros’s vehicle “in the

      left shoulder as far to the left as [she] could and still open the driver’s side car

      door.” Appendix Vol. 3 at 35. Lucas exited her vehicle, determined that Botros

      was injured, and reentered her vehicle to call 911. Shortly thereafter, Lucas’s

      vehicle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Ashley Culp, who had been

      distracted by her child crying in the back seat. The collision severed Lucas’s

      spinal cord, rendering her quadriplegic.

[4]   Lucas filed a notice of tort claim with the State and filed a negligence complaint

      against Culp, Botros, Swinford and her husband, the State, and the City of

      Fishers. 2 Lucas’s amended complaint alleges that the State’s negligence

      “includes, but is not [necessarily] limited to, the negligent design and/or

      construction of I-69, an urban freeway, at the location” where she was injured.

      Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 30. In a response to one of the State’s interrogatories,

      2
          The State and the City of Fishers are currently the only remaining defendants.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                 Page 3 of 11
      Lucas asserted that “[n]egligence includes failure to provide a left hand

      shoulder suitable for stopped vehicles and occupants to be out of traffic lane.”

      Id. at 59.

[5]   The State moved for summary judgment, asserting that it is entitled to

      immunity for the performance of a discretionary function under Indiana Code

      Section 34-13-3-3(7) 3 of the ITCA. Lucas filed a response to the State’s motion.

      In May 2022, after a hearing, the trial court issued an order denying the State’s

      summary judgment motion. The court rejected the State’s argument that it is

      entitled to discretionary function immunity, finding that “the State’s redesign

      and construction of the relevant portion of I-69 are not subject to immunity

      under the discretionary function section of Indiana Code 34-13-3-3(7).”

      Appealed Order at 3. The court further observed,

              The ITCA does contain an exception providing immunity for
              highway design, but only if the design occurred at least twenty
              (20) years prior to the injury. Ind. Code 34-13-3-3(18). That
              section specifically states that it does not relieve the government
              of a “continuing duty to provide and maintain public highways
              in a reasonably safe condition.” Here the State’s evidence shows
              a substantial redesign occurred in 2012.

      3
       In April 2021, Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3 was amended to include a subsection (a), which
      encompasses the provisions at issue here, and a subsection (b), which addresses COVID-19-related claims. As
      do the parties, we refer to the version of the statute in effect when Lucas was injured.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                           Page 4 of 11
      Id. at 2-3. The court also found “that questions of fact exist as to whether I-69

      was a reasonably safe highway at the time of the accident.” Id. at 4. The State

      now brings this interlocutory appeal.

      Discussion and Decision
[6]   The State contends that the trial court erred in denying its summary judgment

      motion. Our standard of review is well settled:

              We review a summary judgment ruling de novo, applying the
              same standard as the trial court. The moving party bears the
              initial burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no
              genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment
              as a matter of law. Summary judgment is improper if the moving
              party fails to carry its burden, but if it succeeds, then the
              nonmoving party must come forward with evidence establishing
              the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. We construe all
              factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party and resolve all
              doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving
              party. Our review is limited to those facts designated to the trial
              court. Issues of statutory construction present questions of law,
              which we review de novo. We are not bound by the trial court’s
              findings of fact and conclusions thereon, which merely aid our
              review by providing us with a statement of reasons for the trial
              court’s actions.

      Ind. Univ. v. Thomas, 167 N.E.3d 724, 731 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (alterations,

      citations, and quotation marks omitted). “A trial court’s summary judgment

      ruling is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the losing party has the

      burden of establishing that the trial court erred.” Thomson Inc. v. Ins. Co. of N.

      Am., 11 N.E.3d 982, 994 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied (2015). “We will

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023        Page 5 of 11
      affirm the trial court’s summary judgment ruling on any basis supported by the

      designated evidence.” Cruz v. New Centaur, LLC, 150 N.E.3d 1051, 1055 (Ind.

      Ct. App. 2020).

[7]   Governmental immunity from suit is governed by the ITCA. Bartholomew Cnty.

      v. Johnson, 995 N.E.2d 666, 671 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “Governmental entities

      and their employees are subject to liability for torts committed by them unless

      they can prove that one of the immunity provisions of the ITCA applies.” Id. at

      672 (quoting E. Chicago Police Dep’t v. Bynum, 826 N.E.2d 22, 26 (Ind. Ct. App.

      2005), trans. denied (2006)). The underlying purposes of immunity are “to

      protect the public treasury from excessive lawsuits and to ensure that public

      employees can exercise discretion in carrying out their official duties without

      fear of litigation.” Ladra v. State, 177 N.E.3d 412, 424 (Ind. 2021).

              Immunity assumes negligence but denies liability. Thus, the
              issues of duty, breach and causation are not before the court in
              deciding whether the government entity is immune. If the court
              finds the government is not immune, the case may yet be decided
              on the basis of failure of any element of negligence. This should
              not be confused with the threshold determination of immunity.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023     Page 6 of 11
      Johnson, 995 N.E.2d at 672 (quoting Peavler v. Bd. of Comm’rs of Monroe Cnty.,

      528 N.E.2d 40, 46-47 (Ind. 1988)). 4

[8]   “Whether the ITCA imparts immunity to a governmental entity is a question of

      law for the court to decide.” Schon v. Frantz, 156 N.E.3d 692, 699 (Ind. Ct. App.

      2020) (quoting Lee v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., 75 N.E.3d 518, 525 (Ind.

      Ct. App. 2017)). “The question may require an extended factual development,

      but the essential inquiry is whether the challenged act is the type of function

      which the legislature intended to protect with immunity.” City of Indpls. v.

      Duffitt, 929 N.E.2d 231, 236 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). “The party seeking immunity

      bears the burden of proving that its conduct falls within the provisions of the

      ITCA.” Schon, 156 N.E.3d at 699. Because the ITCA is in derogation of the

      common law, it must be strictly construed against limitations on a claimant’s

      right to bring suit. Schoettmer v. Wright, 992 N.E.2d 702, 706 (Ind. 2013). 5

      Indeed, our supreme court has emphasized that, “[a]t common law and by

      4
       On a related note, “[t]he Comparative Fault Act does not apply to governmental entities.” Murray v. Indpls.
      Pub. Schs., 128 N.E.3d 450, 452 (Ind. 2019) (citing Ind. Code § 34-51-2-2). Thus, any contributory negligence
      on a plaintiff’s part, no matter how slight, will bar the plaintiff’s claim against a governmental entity. St. John
      Town Bd. v. Lambert, 725 N.E.2d 507, 516 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). The State asserted contributory negligence as
      an affirmative defense in its answer to Lucas’s complaint. Appellant’s App. Vol. 2 at 32.
      5
        See Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Roach-Walker, 917 N.E.2d 1224, 1226-27 (Ind. 2009) (“Like many other
      jurisdictions, Indiana abolished common law sovereign immunity for all government activities in a series of
      judicial decisions in the 1960s and early 1970s. As a result of these decisions, most activities of government
      entities were exposed to liability under traditional tort theories. In response, the Indiana General Assembly
      passed the ITCA. This statute granted absolute immunity to governmental entities in a number of specific
      circumstances, and codified rules of liability for other areas of governmental activity.”) (citing, inter alia,
      Campbell v. State, 259 Ind. 55, 63, 284 N.E.2d 733, 737-38 (1972) (abrogating immunity for state)).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                                  Page 7 of 11
       statute, government liability for tortious conduct is the rule while immunity is

       the exception.” Ladra, 177 N.E.3d at 416 (bold emphasis omitted).

[9]    Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3 reads in pertinent part as follows:

               A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of
               the employee’s employment is not liable if a loss results from the
               following:

               …

               (7) The performance of a discretionary function ….

               …

               (18) Design of a highway (as defined in IC 9-13-2-73), toll road
               project (as defined in IC 8-15-2-4(4)), tollway (as defined in IC 8-
               15-3-7), or project (as defined in IC 8-15.7-2-14) if the claimed
               loss occurs at least twenty (20) years after the public highway, toll
               road project, tollway, or project was designed or substantially
               redesigned; except that this subdivision shall not be construed to
               relieve a responsible governmental entity from the continuing
               duty to provide and maintain public highways in a reasonably
               safe condition.

[10]   Regarding subdivision (7), on which the State relies, courts apply the “planning-

       operational” test to determine whether a governmental entity has engaged in a

       discretionary function that is immune from liability under the ITCA. Voit v.

       Allen Cnty., 634 N.E.2d 767, 769 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (citing, inter alia, Peavler,

       528 N.E.2d at 46).

               Under this test, if the decision of the governmental entity was a
               “planning” activity, that is a function involving the formulation
       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023        Page 8 of 11
               of basic policy characterized by official judgment, discretion,
               weighing of alternatives, and public policy choices, then the
               decision is discretionary and immune under [Indiana Code
               Section 34-13-3-3(7)]. Peavler, 528 N.E.2d at 45. Government
               decisions about policy formation which involve assessment of
               competing priorities, a weighing of budgetary considerations, or
               the allocation of scarce resources are also planning activities. Id.
               On the other hand, if the function is “operational,” for example
               decisions regarding only the execution or implementation of
               already formulated policy, the function is not discretionary under
               the statute and no immunity attaches.

       Id. at 769-70. “The governmental entity seeking to establish immunity bears the

       burden of proving that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision

       made by consciously balancing risks and benefits.” Duffitt, 929 N.E.2d at 236.

[11]   In its brief, the State details the various policy considerations and administrative

       procedures that resulted in the approval of a five-foot-wide left shoulder for the

       redesigned portion of southbound I-69. It then argues that discretionary

       function “immunity applies here because the undisputed evidence establishes

       that the State consciously engaged in decision making regarding the shoulder

       width on I-69 and the decision to apply [for], and ultimately approve, an

       exception request.” Appellant’s Br. at 14.

[12]   For her part, Lucas contends that Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(18) controls

       in this situation because it is more specific than subdivision (7). We agree. See

       ESPN, Inc. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Police Dep’t, 62 N.E.3d 1192, 1199 (Ind. 2016)

       (“specific statutory provisions take priority over general statutory provisions”)

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023       Page 9 of 11
       (quoting Wright v. State, 949 N.E.2d 411, 415 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011)). 6

       Governmental discretionary functions are performed in numerous different

       contexts, including the (re)designing of a highway. To allow subdivision (7),

       which grants immunity for the performance of discretionary functions in

       general, to take priority over the more specific subdivision (18), which denies

       immunity for a loss that occurs within twenty years of a negligent highway

       design or substantial redesign, would render the latter provision meaningless,

       and “[i]t is well settled that we must presume the Legislature did not enact a

       useless provision.” Holcomb v. Bray, 187 N.E.3d 1268, 1289 (Ind. 2022). 7

       Moreover, as mentioned above, the ITCA must be strictly construed against

       limitations on a claimant’s right to bring suit. Schoettmer, 992 N.E.2d at 706.

[13]   The State does not contend that Lucas’s loss did not result from its 2012

       redesign of southbound I-69, nor does it challenge the trial court’s

       determination that the redesign was “substantial” for purposes of Indiana Code

       6
         The ESPN court explained that “[t]he general/specific canon is [a] doctrine of statutory construction known
       by the Latin term, generalia specialibus non derogant. Black’s Law Dictionary 799 (10th ed. 2014). It holds that ‘if
       there is a conflict in a legal instrument between a general provision and a specific provision, the specific
       provision prevails.’ Id.” 62 N.E.3d at 1199 n.8.
       7
         For this reason, we respectfully disagree with the Voit court’s determination that subdivision (7) takes
       priority over subdivision (18) with respect to a claim for failing to maintain a highway in a reasonably safe
       condition. See 634 N.E.2d at 769 (“Plaintiffs essentially seek, in this lawsuit, to hold defendants liable for a
       failure to make what they allege to be needed improvements to Adams Center Road. To the extent that
       plaintiffs seek improvements to the current design and do not allege defects in the original 1962 design, we
       agree that [subdivision (18)] is not applicable and will not serve as a basis for granting immunity in this case.
       Allegations of a failure to update, improve, or modernize the roadway and culvert in question, however,
       directly implicate [subdivision (7)], governmental discretionary functions.”) (footnote omitted).

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                                  Page 10 of 11
       Section 34-13-3-3(18). 8 Consequently, the State is not entitled to immunity

       under subdivision (18), nor is it entitled to immunity under subdivision (7) for

       the reasons given above. We therefore affirm the trial court’s denial of the

       State’s summary judgment motion.

[14]   Affirmed.

       Altice, C.J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

       8
        Also, the State does not challenge the court’s determination that questions of fact exist as to whether I-69
       was a reasonably safe highway at the time of Lucas’s accident.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-1693 | October 31, 2023                              Page 11 of 11