# Kimberlin v. DeLong

> Indiana Supreme Court · June 13, 1994 · 637 N.E.2d 121

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710761

## Case

- **Full name:** Brett Coleman KIMBERLIN, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. Sandra Sue DeLONG, Personal Representative for Carl David DeLong, Deceased, and Sandra Sue DeLong, Appellees (Plaintiffs Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 13, 1994
- **Citations:** 637 N.E.2d 121; 1994 Ind. LEXIS 64; 1994 WL 250431
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Givan
- **Judges:** Dickson, Sullivan, Debruler, Givan, Issue, Shepard
- **Cited by:** 86 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710761

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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…
- 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”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9710761. Public record. Not legal advice.