*1 motion granting Methodist's case, the statements instant In the 1194. personnel Methodist allegedly made Glenn Cal- by Rev. made the statements affirmed. Judgment kins. SULLIVAN, JJ., concur. CHEZEM two allege Calkins
Smiths them. Smiths to statements fraudulent hospital, they entered that after
claim go in and talk them to encouraged Calkins addition, told James Calkins In
to Richard. be "he wouldn't lived if Richard at 24. Record you knew." Richard same past assert must statement
A fraudulent state of these Neither existing fact. VALPARAISO, CITY OF fact; existing past or asserts ments Defendant-Appellant, fraudulent therefore, they cannot be claim. for Smiths' the basis form
cannot EDGECOMB, B. James by false state fraud though Even Plaintiff-Appellee. present, Smiths not fact was to failed if Methodist action their maintain No. 64A03-9005-CV-198. dis duty to it had which facts disclose Appeals fraud occurs type of This to them. close District. Third certain duty to disclose having a "one April 18,1991. so, do fails to knowingly to another facts upon this result, relies other as a Brown his detriment." to nondisclosure Ind.App., upon the ex- complaint is based Smiths' them, owed duty Methodist of a
istence owed Methodist duty
independent par- them,
Richard, as Richard's advise to including the
ents, condition Richard's dead brain Richard was opinion
physicians' subse- opinion was the fact
and of
quently confirmed.
Therefore, not concerned we are of con- arising lack from allegedly medical treatment. to a course
sent is whether raised Rather duty to dis- independent had an
Methodist condition incompetent patient's
close the Methodist hold family. We patient's to advise duty to Smiths not owe
did in- where condition Richard's
them of to a course related
formation did Methodist Because treatment.
medical condi- Richard's disclose have a fraud- act Smiths, did not Methodist
tion misrepre- fraudulent neither ulently. Since concealment nor fraudulent
sentation correct trial court
present,
spectrum of duties. McFarlin v. State Ind.App., 524 N.E.2d and cases cited therein.
At the time in
the officer had
by
been instructed
his lieutenant
to at
tempt
up
to catch
proces-
with the funeral
sion and lead it the
way through
rest of the
©
town.
9-4-1.5-l(a) generally grants
IC
the
right
way
at intersections to funeral
processions when the
in
pro-
vehicles
the
lighted
cession
headlights
have
and they
by
are led
a
displaying
flashing
vehicle
a
light.
red
engaged
When
in leading such a
procession
police
a
properly
officer is
en-
gaged in performing the
po-
duties of the
Polick,
Ltd.,
Knight,
Steven P.
&
department
lice
as set forth in IC 86-8-8-
Munster,
defendant-appellant.
for
10, which
protecting
rights
include
the
Lyons, Lyons
Truitt,
John M.
Valpa-
persons
property, directing
the move-
raiso,
plaintiff-appellee.
for
in public ways
vehicles
and enfore-
ing or preventing the violation of all laws
GARRARD, Judge.
in
in
city.
force
the
interlocutory appeal
This is an
from the
Edgecomb argues, however,
that a
denial
city's
summary
of the
motion for
genuine
issue
concerning
exist
wheth
judgment.
govern-
That motion asserted
er the officer's conduct came within the
immunity
mental
under
IC
exception
immunity
assertedly recog
The
Edgecomb's
facts disclose that
auto- nized in Seymour National Bank v. State
right
mobile
hand turn into the
(1981), Ind.,
within the stat- precedential Whatever effect of that ute. We conclude that he was. be, language may in the context of this Edgecomb argues immunity litigation Edgecomb's answer to asser- apply should not because there is no law tion is that the Seymour excep- so-called requires police application officer to lead or tion would have only procession. escort a funeral potential liability city's of the officer. The liability, any, upon if is based narrowly statute is not to be so construed. superior, so if exception Rather, our definition decisions have established that provided under applies, city this subsection is exists and cannot be held eg. liable. v. Michael acting where an officer within a broad Crawfordsville TAS event, City is in either moment because
(1985), Ind.App., 479 transfer not liable. city only the 159. Since denied action, in this a defendant in the order named in the reversal I concur ma- not create would exception so-called City's motion * issue. terial *3 with remand and reverse therefore We city's motion
instructions
summary judgment. SULLIVAN, J.,
HOFFMAN, P.J., and separate file in result and
concur
opinions. concurring Judge, HOFFMAN, Presiding Jr., BRANT, Na Mercantile J. William
in result. Indiana, un as Trustee Bank of tional 3436, re- Plum Creek has This Court No. Trust in result. der 1 concur Associates, an Indiana General language of Village observed peatedly (Defendants Partnership , Appellants outrageous conduct regarding an Seymour Below), lawof enforcement and Counterclaimants exception to dicta. v. Dept. Correction e.g., of Kutansky, HESTER, Rudy Mau C. Hal L. 1338, N.E.2d Ind.App., 556 (1990), Stagg Stratton, Checroun, Donald rice Ball State Trust. 1344; v. Bd. Riggin of (Plaintiffs and Counterdefen Appellees 616, 631; N.E.2d (1986),Ind.App., 489 Univ. Below). dants (1983), Columbus, Etc. City Jacobs 45A03-9011-CV-487. No. 1253, 1260. Conse N.E.2d Ind.App., 454 did not become language quently, Appeals of Town binding. Koske v. and is law Third District. Ind., (1990), 551 Co. Engineering send April18,1991. N.E.2d concurring. SULLIVAN, Judge, Sey language acts" "outrageous Ind., v. State
mour constitute does not pro cloak "exception" to the merely a It is by LC.
vided doctrine that the
recognition is if the officer inapplicable is
superior employment. scope of his
acting within states specifically itself
The statute em only conferred is scope of his "acting within
ployee
employment". agree with may, I as it
Be that offi- holding opinion in
Garrard's I enforcing the law. cer was not the offi- whether agree that
further to be as was "so
cer's conduct performance outside consequently
duty undertaken" no is of employment, it scope of the