noting that the county had no notice of the wash-out until the driver’s accident, that the county highway department was busy on the morning after the storm repairing other washed-out culverts of which it was aware and holding that the county carried its burden to show it was entitled to immunity because the weather-related condition was temporary under Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3 (3)
How later courts described this case
- noting that the county had no notice of the wash-out until the driver’s accident, that the county highway department was busy on the morning after the storm repairing other washed-out culverts of which it was aware and holding that the county carried its burden to show it was entitled to immunity because the weather-related condition was temporary under Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3 (3)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DICKSON, J.,
dissenting, believing that granting summary judgment to find immunity is improper because of genuine issues of fact as to whether the hazard was temporary and whether its efficient cause was weather or the government’s failure to monitor and maintain its roads with reasonable care.