INDIANAPOLIS (Legal Newsline) – Indiana’s Department of Transportation will be exposed to new theories of liability over traffic accidents as a result of a recent state Supreme Court decision.
On Dec. 9, the court issued a ruling in Tracy Ladra’s lawsuit against INDOT that says it can be held liable if it ignores defects in roads that ultimately cause accidents. The decision says immunity afforded to government entities under the Indiana Tort Claims Act does not apply in those situations.
Ladra’s lawsuit alleges INDOT long knew of a condition on Interstate 94 that caused flooding but did not correct it. She hydroplaned in January 2017, spun across traffic and rolled into a ditch.
“By emphasizing that government immunity for tortious conduct is the exception to the rule of liability, our decision today reaffirms long-standing principles of democratic accountability — principles embodied in our common law and codified in the ITCA,” Justice Christopher Goff wrote.
A responding officer to the accident testified the flooding went above his ankle. He said that section of 94 consistently floods because debris collects in nearby drains.
He said he’d called highway maintenance crews to clear those drains at least 10 times during his six years. A second accident occurred the night of Ladra’s wreck and INDOT spent nearly three hours unclogging the drains.
The decision overturns summary judgment that was granted for INDOT in Porter Superior Court by Judge Jeffrey Clymer.
Two justices dissented, saying the issue of whether INDOT was negligent should never reach a jury.
“The Court goes on to question the need for immunity under the circumstances, including the legislative rationale of protecting taxpayers from tort judgments,” Justice Mark Massa wrote.
“But that misses the point. The legislature is aware that immunity may work a harsh — even ‘unfair’ —outcome, yet still authorized it in certain circumstances. Any policy arguments are more properly considered by the General Assembly, which ‘has wide latitude in determining public policy.’”