Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Durham Ex Rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 13, 2000No. 49A02-9811-CV-940Published

1ConcurrenceBrook, Judge

I concur wholeheartedly with the majority’s reasoning and result, but write separately to emphasize that a predominant number of states have already recognized what the majority today recognizes: that a “law which allows the fortuitous circumstance of death to insulate a defendant from liability for punitive damages” and which sends a clear message that it is cheaper to kill than to injure is intolerable. See Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc., 702 N.E.2d 1108, 1117, n. 7 (Ind.Ct.App. 1998), trans. granted, 714 N.E.2d 172 (1999); see also Prosser and Keeton, Torts § 127, at 945 (5th ed.).…

2Cases cited24 opinions

  1. Shuamber v. HendersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
  2. Sterling v. BloomIdaho Supreme Court · 1986
  3. Harris v. State, Dept. of HealthIdaho Supreme Court · 1992
  4. Gionfriddo v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1984
  5. New York, Chicago & St. Louis Railroad v. HendersonIndiana Supreme Court · 1957

19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API