# Holtz v. Bd. of Com'rs of Elkhart County

> Indiana Supreme Court · October 10, 1990 · 560 N.E.2d 645

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721344

## Case

- **Full name:** David B. HOLTZ, Appellant, v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF ELKHART COUNTY, Indiana, Appellee
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 10, 1990
- **Citations:** 560 N.E.2d 645; 1990 Ind. LEXIS 199; 1990 WL 152295
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dickson
- **Judges:** Givan, Shepard, Pivarnik, Dickson, Debruler
- **Cited by:** 19 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/9721344

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that employee alleged retaliatory discharge claim where he alleged he was terminated in retaliation for bringing deficiencies in bridge inspection procedures to attention of Indiana Attorney General and Department of Highways

## Opinion text

DICKSON, Justice,
dissenting.
Although noting that the Tort Claims Act is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed, the majority opinion then fails to apply the proper meaning of "strictly construe." In Collier v. Prater (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 497, 498 , this Court held that statutory requirements in derogation of the common law "are to be strictly construed against limitations on a claimant's right to bring suit" (emphasis added). Similarly, in Indiana State Highway Comm'n v. Morris (1988), Ind., 528 N.E.2d 468, 473 , we recognized that the Tort Claims Act "must be strictly construed and narrowly applied" (emphasis added).
The immunity provided by the Tort Claims Act applies only to a "loss" which is defined by Ind.Code § 84-4~16.5-2(e):
"Loss" means injury to or death of a person, or damage to property.
The plain and ordinary meaning of this definition connotes nothing more than harm to a person or property. To contort the simple phrase "damage to property" to mean "damages" to a "property right" is contrary to the plain meaning of the words and defies the rule requiring the statute to be construed against limitations on a claimant's right to bring suit.
I find the unanimous opinion of the Fourth District Court of Appeals to be fully correct and would adopt and incorporate it by reference pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 11(B)(8).
DeBRULER, J., concurs.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9721344. Public record. Not legal advice.