“We conclude then that the object of the Tort Claims Act . . . is to protect the fiscal integrity of governmental entities by limiting their liability . . . for damages in tort.”
How later courts described this case
- “We conclude then that the object of the Tort Claims Act . . . is to protect the fiscal integrity of governmental entities by limiting their liability . . . for damages in tort.”
- there is a rational basis to the legislature’s attempt to protect the public treasury from unlimited liability in tort
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERTSON, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the conclusion and result of the majority opinion. The fundamental issue is whether Thompson was denied due process by the State’s use of his property without just compensation, an act plainly and expressly forbidden by both the state and federal constitutions. Thompson,- in my opinion, makes a more than adequate case for redress of his loss of interest. Using the logic of Schnull v. Indianapolis Union R. Co., (1921) 190 Ind. 572 , 131 N.E. 51 , Thompson can legally, and should morally, be compensated for the State’s use of his money.
I would reverse the trial court.