Legal Opinion · Dissent

Indiana Limestone Co. v. Staggs

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided November 21, 1996No. 47A05-9406-CV-250Published

1DissentSharpnack, Chief Judge

I respectfully dissent with regard to the duty issue. I disagree with the majority's conclusion that under the facts of this case, Indiana Limestone owes the decedent a common law duty.

As stated in the majority opinion, we must examine three factors when determining whether there is a common law duty: the relationship between the parties, the reasonable foreseeability of harm, and public policy concerns. Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind.1991), reh'g denied. Contrary to the majority's conclusion, the undisputed facts of this case do not demonstrate that there was a relationship between…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Webb v. JarvisIndiana Supreme Court · 1991
  3. Tibbs v. Huber, Hunt & Nichols, Inc.Indiana Supreme Court · 1996
  4. City of Indianapolis v. EmmelmanIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
  5. Wozniczka v. McKEANIndiana Court of Appeals · 1969

12 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