Court Opinion

ID: 9720329
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:26:31.402193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:16.087688
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion in all respects except as to the conclusion that the “exceptions discussed in Calvary Baptist are not accepted in Indiana”. Maj. op. at 1288. The court in Calvary Baptist held that “no such question was presented in regard to the Calvary Baptist Church and its members”. 522 N.E.2d at 375. Accordingly, it did not adopt the exceptions employed by the California cases discussed and did not apply those exceptions to the factual situation presented.
In my estimation, however, the court clearly indicated that given the appropriate case it would adopt the exceptions. The court stated in this regard:
“... we recognize the wisdom of applying an exception to the general rule in the case of large unincorporated associations such as labor unions having a hierarchy of structure that drastically changes the relationship of membership to association and the control that a member has in its affairs ...” 522 N.E.2d 371, 375.
In the case before us, the facts indicate that the relationship of member to Association differs from that present in Calvary Baptist. Here, the Board of Managers governs and functions separate and apart from the membership. The matter of maintaining common areas, including snow removal, is within the prerogative of the Board who has *1290delegated that authority to a non-member maintenance supervisor. Therefore, the facts may justify a conclusion that the relationship between individual members and the operating entity, coupled with the relative lack of control exercisable by a member, is such as to make adoption of the California exception appropriate.3
The actual adoption of an exception, if not outright rejection of the continuing application of the common law rule, is best left to the highest court of our State. For this reason I concur in the affirmance of the summary judgment.

. Under the facts of this case, the California exception would seem to be applicable. White v. Cox (1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 824, 95 Cal.Rptr. 259.