Romack v. Public Service Co. of Indiana

With due deference to the opinions of my colleagues on the trial and appellate benches, I respectfully dissent. In my opinion this case involves an issue of substantial public importance which requires a change in the law currently existing in Indiana in such cases,1 as did Justice Hunter (retired) and Judge Ratliff in Campbell v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1981), Ind., 421 N.E.2d 1099 (trams. denied) (Hunter, J., dissent ing), and (1980), Ind.App., 418 N.E.2d 1054.

No case cited by the majority applies with specificity to this one. The distinguishing factors are these:

1. Romack by his twenty-five years…