Court Opinion

ID: 9505522
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:05:54.942218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:33.457647
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring.
All five Justices join Justice Rucker's explication of the law on governmental immunity as it applies to this case. The trial court and the court of appeals wrongly held that the school and the Department of Natural Resources were immune.
The trial court was correct, however, to grant summary judgment for the defendants. This is not a case brought under Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, of course, because that Act does not apply to tort claims against government entities. Ind.Code § 84-51-2-2. Instead, this case is governed by the common law, under which even the slightest contributory neg-ligenee by a plaintiff bars recovery. Sauders v. County of Steuben, 693 N.E.2d 16 (Ind.1998).
Thus, to grant summary judgment to the defendants, the trial court need only have been satisfied that a twelve-year-old who smashed live ammunition with a hammer and chisel in the face of his recent firearm safety instruction was minimally negligent as a matter of law. It was not error for the court to reach that conclusion.
SULLIVAN and BOEHM, JJ., concur.