Neal, Admr. v. Home Builders, Inc.
Indiana Supreme Court
1Dissent
Dissenting Opinion
Gilkison, J.
I am unable to agree with the majority opinion for the following reasons:
Of course, the general principles of law applicable to negligence cases, consuming many pages of the majority opinion, are correct. There is no reason for their incorporation in the opinion since there is no dispute concerning them. But I cannot agree with the statement making the law in Indiana, as follows:
“The general rule is that no different or higher duty exists with respect to an infant trespasser than would exist in the case of an adult trespasser, so that ordinarily1 there is no duty…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- United Zinc & Chemical Co. v. BrittSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- City of South Bend v. TurnerIndiana Supreme Court · 1901
- Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. MeansIndiana Court of Appeals · 1914
- Indianapolis, Peru & Chicago Railway Co. v. PitzerIndiana Supreme Court · 1886
- Penso v. McCormickIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.