Huffman v. Monroe County Community School Corp.
564 N.E.2d 961
Ind. Ct. App.
1991
Check Treatment

*1 life skills. habits and teaching her work

Furthеrmore, between Brenda visitation Christopher and Patrick HUFFMAN had be ended because and her children Huffman, Appellants boyfriend in with an abusive she moved (Plaintiffs Below), Brenda admitted and refused to leave. her making a choice between that she was they that boyfriend her children and and MONROE COUNTY COMMUNITY adopted someone wоuld be better off CORPORATION, SCHOOL psycholo Finally, else. as noted Below). (Defendant Appellee Gary's and Bren gists' reports indicated improve in parental da's skills would No. 60A01-9010-CV-410. clearly the evidence the future. We find Appeals of Court of convincingly supported the trial court's and Gary's and First District. finding that termination be in the parеntal rights would Brenda's Jan. G.D.P., WMP., and best interests MAP. DPW did not set

Gary contends care and satisfactory plan a for the forth after termination treatment of the children rights. DPW is not Gary's and Brenda's fu required completely detail a child's ture, (1985), Ind.App., Matter D.L.W. J.K.C., 139, 143; Matter only point out N.E.2d at but need its direction of general sense Ind., plan. Miedl Matter of director, 141. DPW's case worker, all testified psychologists and two W.M.P., G.D.P., adopt and M.A.P. are that and caseworker tes able. DPW's director plan keep the children tified the adoption and home until their their foster shelter, food, clothing, and medi that their provided by the foster cal care would be time. The evidеnce parents until the trial convincingly supports clearly and a satis finding DPW showed court's treatment of factory plan for the care and Page children. convincingly clearly The evidence judg- its findings the court's supports Bren- Gary's ment that termination in the best parental rights would be da's W.M.P., G.D.P., MAP. interests judgment. trial court's affirm the Affirmed. CONOVER, JJ., concur.

BAKER and *2 place Bloomington

meet which took at School, High facility. North a MCOCSC affirm.

FACTS light

The facts in the most favorable 27, 1986, May the Huffmans reveal that on Huffman, Christopher a student from Sa- School, High participating lem was in a regional high school track meet which took place Bloomington High at North County, School Monroe Indiana. The City High par- Tell School track team also ticipated in the track meet.

During ups, warm Tell student from City High put School threw a which shot Christopher struck in the back of the head knocking dislocating him and unconscious Christopher his shoulder. suffered a se- vere laceration to head which left a Christopher's and sear tendernеss. shoul required surgery. der was fractured permanently impaired The shoulder is require surgery. will additional Bloomington High part North is a School County Community of the Monroe School ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍Corporation City High Tell [MCCSC]. part City-Troy Sehool is a of the Tell Town- ship Corporation School [TCTTSC]. sponsored by track meet the Indiana Associаtion, High School Athletic Inc. [IH- govern- MCCSC and TCTTSC SAA]. private mental is a entities IHSAA corporation. not-for-profit Christopher father, and his who was re- bills, sponsible for Christopher's medical MCCSC,TCTTSC, alleging damages IHSAA in the amount of Allen, Allen, Allen, Jay D. Allen & Sa- $250,000.00. The Huffmans entered into a lem, appellants. covenant notto-sue with TCTTSC and Vandiviеr, was dismissed from the suit on TCTTSC Gary Clendening, J. J. Suzette February 1989. The briefs do not indi- Harrell, Clendening Coyne, Bloomington, & compen- cate whether the Huffmans were appellee. by executing the cove- sated TCTTSC ROBERTSON, Judge. nant not-to-sue. The Huffmans executed a release in favor of in ex- IHSAA Christopher appeal and Patrick Huffman $5,000.00. result, change for As a IHSAA granting summary judg- the trial court's January was dismissed from the suit on ment in favor of the Monroe Com- munity Corporation in the School [MCCSC] MCCSC, Defendant, remaining filed personal Huffmans' lawsuit to recover for Summary Judgment arguing injuries Christopher suffered at a track a Motion For targets and of overkill aims and beware of IHSAA release the Huffmans' liability an Deister Mayhew use. them from its to release served 244 N.E.2d 448. Ind.App. the "Release Rule." law under operation of and the the motion granted court The trial *3 comparative of Before the advent appeal. this Huffmans fault1, well settled that Indiana law was joint tortfeasor func DECISION release of one joint all tortfeasors as the release of tioned summary judg purpose of intent of the regard express to the without litigation about which terminate ment is to victim's preserve parties dispute and which factual there can be no Byers Bellew v. against other tortfeasors. matter of law. as a may be determined 335; 37, Cooper (1979),272 Ind. 439, (1977), Ind.App. 174 Bassett v. Glock Clothes, Inc. v. Robert Hall we review a motion When 368 N.E.2d 18. 63, justification Ind. 390 N.E.2d 155. apply we the same summary judgment, rule" has been articulated of the "release by trial employed ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍that standard by supreme court as follows: King v. Bartholomew court. (1985), Ind.App., 476 N.E.2d 877 Hosp. First, prejudice prevents it an unfаir ap Summary Judgment is by precluding the trans. denied. against the defendant pleadings, deposi only when the propriate his recovering in excess of plaintiff from ad tions, interrogatories, answers obtaining settle- by successively injuries affidavits, missions, testimony, any, if in from the various ments genuine is no issue Second, joint tort there show return fоr releases. enti moving party is material fact and 'constitute, sense, entity, one in a feasors matter of law. Id. judgment as a tled to severally being jointly each of them genuine of a Any to the existence doubt as plaintiff.' injury liable fact must be resolved issue of material 336, Bellew, at 337. supra, 396 N.E.2d summary moving for against the pаrty (S.D.Ind.1988), 684 Gray In v. Chacon Education- judgment. Peterson v. Culver 1481, Judge of the United F.Supp. Barker (1980), 402 Ind.App., al Foundation Court, refused S.D. District States determining purposes of 448. For N.E.2d in a feder release rule apply the Indiana appropriate, a fact summary judgment if is by Indiana governed diversity case al facili material if its existence said to be is involving joint tort- Comparative Fault Act any of the issues tates the resolution Indiana Su predicted the She feasors. Form Mut. involved. Anderson v. State legisla that the decide preme Court would (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 1170. Ins. Co. Fault Comparative tive enactment when Summary judgment appropriate is Judge rule. the release suрerseded Act regarding dispute or conflict there is no the re justification of noted the Barker dispositive dispute. of the facts which com out above-was rule-as set lease Co. v. County Bank & Trust Madison of the language undercut pletely (1987), Ind., We Kreegar 514 Act. She noted Comparative Fault Indiana summary judg granting of may аffirm the Supreme Court the Indiana further theory any or basis found ment on rule to the release to adhere has continued record, trial court though that even so example, For despite intense criticism. theory, we can may have relied on one Judge excel noted Garrard's Judge Barker and come to рertinent materials review the dissenting in his the rule criticism of lent supported by a different theo a conclusion (1986), Ind.App., Hoke opinion Young Ricks Const. Co. v. ry. Howard v. H.J. will (1987), N.E.2d trans. trans. denied. Ind.App., 509 N.E.2d 1279 493 Judge a lethal Gar- Summary judgment portion pertinent out a denied. set as follows: rard's criticism mindful of its must be weapon and courts Fault Indiana's еt became effective January 34-4-33-1 § seq., bar, against case at the Huffmans' lawsuit First, has 'an the rule itself been termed governed by principles com- MCCSC is of com- antiquated arbitrary of an survival procedural concept, arising law out mon law mon long forgotten semi-criminal forms of Act. (5th action.' Prosser & Keeton on Torts In Governmental Interinsurance Ex- Ed.) p. 'surviving It relic is a change Khayyata Ind.App., period metaphysics' Wig- Cokian governmental entity brought more, Joint-Tortfeasor, Release to One against a suit an individual and the individ- 17 TILLRev. 568. governmen- ual counterclaimed operation its results have been char- entity. tal We noted thе en- *4 incongruous. acterized as tity's against claim the individual would be fault, principles comparative tried under they 'More often than otherwise are Wrongdoers unjust and unintended. but the individual's counterclaim making in against governmental entity gov- who do not make or share the reparation discharged, while one erned are under rules of common law because willing wrong and more right to the no exemption governmental of the entities guilty The bears the whole loss.... under the 1.C. 84- shortchanges rule the claimant or over- Further, acknowledged ap- 4-383-8. we person plication charges compara- who settles.... of a combinаtion of both Finally, legal theory, principles princi- it is anomalous in tive fault and common law giving advantage wholly ples practical compli- an in tortfeasors one lawsuit causes inconsistent with the nature of their ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍inequities. cations as well as (Citation omitted) liability.! present yet example case is anоther hand, supposed justi- On other practical complications inequities illusory. the rule appear fications multiple encountered in a case with claims recovery The fear of double is unfounded requiring application comparative paid the amount should be credited since along principles. fault with common law upon any judgment against obtained oth- against The Huffmans the suit judgment er and after a governmental private a entities two plaintiff may proceed as he chooses organization. applicable Common law was making judgment collections from debt- against governmental to their claims argument ors so the that he should not entities, MCCSC, and the law TCTTSC proceed piecemeal has no be allowed comparative applicable to the fault was Keeton, supra, p. merit. Prosser & IHSAA. Had the Huffmans To avoid of these harsh conse- some entities, governmental released the thеir quences we have maintained a distinction against IHSAA-governed prin- under and other between "releases" settle- ciples comparative have fault-would sue, denominated covenants not to proceeded. ments loan-receipt or covenants not execute Also, present casе also demonstrates agreements. despite We have done so inequity by the critics of the an often cited entirely the fact that the distinction is general release rule. The Huffmans en- artificial. tered a not-tosue with into covenant 493 N.E.2d at 1281. (Citation omitted; trigger which did not the release TCTTSC omitted.) footnote Howevеr, general exe- rule. release trigger the cuted in favor of IHSAA did exempt- entities have been Governmental application of the Indiana release rule and served to release MCCSC. ed from the Com- 3$4-4-88-8. A As mentioned the distinction be- parative Fault Act. IC. entity treatment a covenant not-to- means "the stаte or a tween the political subdivision of the state." I.C. 84- general in the context of sue and a release 4-16.5-2(c). entirely rule The Tort Act defines a the invocation of the release Claims probability, artificial. In all had the Huff- corporation political school as a subdivision. 84-4-16.5-2(f)(9). Therefore, styled of IHSAA as а in the mans their release I.C. denied, legisla- such a trams. general a instead of not-to-sue covenant would tive overhaul release, against MCCSC requires revision of corre- their suit created rules. sponding judicially proceed. legislative enact that with underlying the creation of We note policies Fault Act which ment of the rule were twofold. release governed by to be First, prevent certain lawsuits designed rule was causes as as comparative fault well principles of recovering in of their from excess plaintiffs law, rule constitutes the release successively obtaining settle- common injuries by it unwary than trap for greater an even in return defendants ments from different comparative fault. the advent of did before Byers for releases. Bellew trap serves suggest such Second, the con- Ind. negotiated settlements. liability treats discourage joint and several cept of entity pur- one multiple defendants event, regаrdless of whether any his compensating plaintiff poses of any ever constituted rule has the release meaning- policies These injuries. Id. law, we must thing but an abomination subject involving in cases defendants less precedents of supreme court's follow *5 thus, and, Fault Act the Comparative the supra. The Bellew, Coоper, supra, apply. rule should not general release applicable remains release rule general remaining defendant or defen- by common law. the governed When cases subject Comparative to the Fault are dants the Huffmans' As noted liabili- concept joint and several the by common governed against MCCSC is by a scheme that replaced ty has been entities are ex- law because liability to reflect each defen- apportions Fault Act. Comparative empted from the attributable to percentage of fault dant's by the triggered rule was The release 834-4- injuries. plaintiff's the served IHSAA whiсh release of Huffmans' remaining defendant or 33-5. When including joint release all princi- subject to traditional defendants Therefore, correct- the trial court MCCSC. partial concept of negligence, ples of judgment in favor of summary ly granted remaining defendants allows satisfaction MCCSC. re- plaintiff those amounts сredit for Judgment affirmed. he set- defendants with whom from ceived v. Highway Comm'n Indiana State tled. J., CHEZEM, concurs. Thus, Ind., (1988), 528 Morris J., separate BAKER, with dissents permitted to recov- be plaintiff will not ' opinion. case. injuries in either of his er in excess BAKER, dissenting. Judge, case, the fact present In the agree- their settlement titled Huffmans analy- majority's with the agrеe While I in- release" "general IHSAA ment with gen- when the absurdity created sis of sue" or a a "covenant stead of compa- injected into rule is eral release only is the barri- not to execute" "covenant arena, I must dissent from rative fault pursuing a them from preventing er they reach. result in form an exercise Such against MCCSC. out, general majority points theAs contrary to this State's over substance the advent was crafted release rule before negotiated set- encourage commitment Fault Act. The Comparative of Indiana's High- Dep't v. Manns State tlements. on tradi- founded judicial creation rule is a Ind., (1989), ways negligence. principles law common tional Judge updated analysis of adopt were concepts traditional I would These (S.D.Ind.1988), Assembly Barker Gray v. Chacon Indiana General when determined which F.Supp. Act. As Fault adopted the supersedes in Act in his dissent suggested Judge Garrard I would release rule. law Ind.App., common Young v. Hоke the trial reverse court allow the Huff- proceed

mans to MCCSC. COUNTY, VANDERBURGH Vander - Plan, burgh County Police Pension Miller, Jeffrey Harlan, David V. S. Bow- County Sheriff, Vanderburgh Appel ers, Harrison, Miller, Evansville, Kent & lants-Defendants, appellants-defendants. ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍Daly, R. Wright, Lawrence Evans & Evansville, Daly, appellee-plaintiff. WEST, Appellee-Plaintiff. Lee No. 65A01-9009-CV-349. RATLIFF, Judge. Chief Appeals Court of

First District. STATEMENT THE OF CASE Posey granted Circuit Court Lee Jan. declaratory judgment West awarding retro- pension active years benefits two *6 prior Vanderburgh service. County, Van- Plan, derburgh County Police Pension Vanderburgh County (collectively Sheriff Vanderburgh) appeal entry the court's summary judgment for West. We revеrse and remand.

FACTS began employment

West with the Van- derburgh Department Sheriff's on 9, In November adopted 36-8-10-12 was which autho- § rized departments sheriff's to establish pension plans trusts as retirement for em- ployees. Vanderburgh County pension plan January became effective department The sheriff's employees jointly plan pro- contribute to fund the retirement, disability, vide and death bene- employees. month, fits for Each the em- ployee (4%) percent contributes four of his salary. 1.C. 86-8-10-12 was amended. §

The amendment allows the amount monthly pension benefits to be increased (2%) up percent year to two for each (20) ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​​​‌‌‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‍twenty years, service over if the fund However, actuarially will remain sound. Vanderburgh County pension plan con-