holding, in a civil action for wrongful death, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment on the issue of the defendant’s liability based on the application of offensive collateral estoppel, where the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the charges against him in his criminal trial and subsequent appeals
How later courts described this case
- holding, in a civil action for wrongful death, the trial court was correct to grant summary judgment on the issue of the defendant’s liability based on the application of offensive collateral estoppel, where the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the charges against him in his criminal trial and subsequent appeals
- noting that liability for intentional torts extends beyond merely foreseeable harms because “it is better for unexpected losses to fall upon the intentional wrongdoer than upon the innocent victim”
- interpreting Ind. Appellate Rule 11(B)(3) and reasoning that "summarily affirmed" indicates "that we are declining to review certain issues, in essence a partial denial of transfer”
- established precedents had held that a tort victim's subsequent suicide insulated tortfeasor from liability for wrongful death, but court recognized new exception if tort was intentional and was a substantial factor in suicide
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GIVAN, Justice,
concurring and dissenting.
Although I concur with the majority opinion in its affirmance of the trial court, I respectfully dissent from the dictum in the majority opinion limiting the application of Hawkins v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (1993), Ind. 608 N.E.2d 1358 . The majority’s observations concerning Hawkins are not necessary to the decision in this case. I do not agree with the majority’s observations; the Hawkins’ ease was decided correctly.