Legal Opinion · Dissent

Barnes v. Antich

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided October 14, 1998No. 45A03-9712-CV-449Published

1DissentRiley, Judge

I respectfully dissent. In order for Antich to prevail we must consider the evidence using a two-part analysis: (1) does a public or private duty exist between the City of Gary and Antich; and (2) if a private duty exists, is it covered under the Tort Claims Act, Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-3(18).

The existence of a duty is a question of law for the court. Benthall v. City of Evansville, 674 N.E.2d 580, 583 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied, 683 N.E.2d 593. The court balances three factors in determining whether a duty exists: (1) the relationship between the parties; (2) the reasonable foreseeability…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Peavler v. BD. OF COM'RS MONROE CTY.Indiana Supreme Court · 1988
  2. Mullin v. Municipal City of South BendIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Greathouse v. ArmstrongIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  4. Hinshaw v. Board of Com'rs of Jay CountyIndiana Supreme Court · 1993
  5. City of Gary v. OdieIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994

2 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