Court Opinion

ID: 9744589
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:08:21.506428+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:50.211790
License: Public Domain

SHARPNACK, C.J.,
dissenting
I respectfully dissent. The statute providing immunity, Ind. Code § 31-13-3-3, is plain enough:
A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee’s employment is not liable if a loss results from:
[[Image here]]
(3) the temporary condition of a public thoroughfare that results from weather.
I.C. § 31-13-3-3(3). This statute protects the governmental entity where it would otherwise be liable by reason of its negligence. Leinbach v. State, 587 N.E.2d 733, 736 (Ind.Ct.App.1992).
There is no real question here that the absence of the culvert was due to the heavy rain, which is a temporary condition “that results from the weather.” I.C. § 31-13-3-3(3). Negligence of the county in designing the culvert, if any, would not be relevant because the absence of the culvert was clearly temporary at the time of the accident. See Leinbach v. State, 587 N.E.2d at 736. Something “temporary” that occurs more than once, or often for that matter, is still temporary and not permanent. I respectfully dissent and would affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Knox County.