South Bend Community Schools Corp. v. Widawski Ex Rel. Page

622 N.E.2d 160, 1993 WL 421706
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 21, 1993
Docket46S03-9310-CV-1142
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 622 N.E.2d 160 (South Bend Community Schools Corp. v. Widawski Ex Rel. Page) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
South Bend Community Schools Corp. v. Widawski Ex Rel. Page, 622 N.E.2d 160, 1993 WL 421706 (Ind. 1993).

Opinions

[161]*161DICKSON, Justice.

The issue presented in this case is whether a minor is an incapacitated person so as to toll the 180-day notice requirement of the Indiana Tort Claims Act, Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5, et seq.

Sara Page, age 7, was injured on September 18, 1989, while participating in a South Bend Community School Corporation gym class taught by Bernie M. Niedbalski. On September 19, 1991, a notice of claim against a government entity, as required by Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-6, was provided with respect to injuries and losses sustained by Sara and her mother, Sandra Widawski. The following day, they filed a complaint against defendants-appellants South Bend Community School Corporation and Niedbalski. Because the statutory tort claim notice was not filed within 180 days after the loss occurred, the trial court granted summary judgment against the mother’s claim but denied summary judgment as to the daughter’s claim, finding minority to be an incapacity which relieved her of the notice deadline. Upon the defendants’ appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of summary judgment. South Bend Community School Corp. v. Widawski (1992), Ind.App., 602 N.E.2d 1045.

The defendants contend that certain provisions included in Public Law 33-1989, effective May, 1989, significantly altered prior law under which minors were not required to file a tort claim notice until after the removal of their incompetency. Théy argue that under present law a minor plaintiff is now barred from bringing a cause of action whenever a notice of claim is not filed within the same period applicable to adults.

The plaintiff responds that the 1989 statutory changes reflect legislative intention to retain minority as a type of incapacity excepted from the 180-day notice requirement. They contend that a minor is inherently under a legal disability—a circumstance tantamount to incapacity. Plaintiff also urges that the phrase “other incapacity” in Ind.Code § 29-3-1-7.5 is sufficiently broad to include minority status and afford Sara an extension of the 180-day filing requirement until 180 days after removal of her incapacity as a minor.

Pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-7, any claim against a political subdivision is barred unless notice of that claim is properly filed with that entity within 180 days after the loss occurs. The statutory provisions pertinent to the present case are as follows:

If a person is incapacitated and cannot give notice as required in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, the person's claim is barred unless notice is filed within one hundred eighty (180) days after the incapacity is removed.

Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-8.

“Incapacitated” has the meaning set forth in [Ind.Code §] 29-3-1-7.5. Ind.Code § 34-4-16.5-2(d).

“Incapacitated person” means an individual who:

(1) Cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry;
(2) Is unable:
(A) To manage in whole or in part the individual’s property;
(B) To provide self-care; or
(C) Both; because of insanity, mental illness, mental deficiency, physical illness, infirmity, habitual drunkenness, excessive use of drugs, incarceration, confinement, detention, duress, fraud, undue influence of others on the individual, or other incapacity; or
(3) Has a developmental disability (as defined in [Ind.Code §] 12-7-2-61).

Ind.Code § 29-3-1-7.5.

Prior to the 1989 amendments, these provisions read as follows:

If a person is incompetent to give notice as required in section 6 or 7 of this chapter, his claim is barred unless notice is filed within one hundred eighty [180] days after the incompetency is removed.

Ind.Code Ann. § 34-4-16.5-8 (West 1983) (amended 1989).

“[I]ncompetent” means a person who is under the age of eighteen (18) years or is [162]*162incapable by reason of insanity, mental illness, or other incapacity of either managing his property or caring for himself or both.

Law of May 4, 1987, Pub.L. No. 314-1987, sec. 1, 1987 Ind.Acts 3010 (amended 1989).

In essence, the 1989 modifications consist of replacing the term “incompetent” with “incapacitated,” removing the definition of “incompetent” from the Tort Claims Act, and referring to the definition of “incapacitated” as defined in the new guardianship code at Ind.Code § 29-3-1-7.5. Emphasizing certain rules of statutory construction, the defendants argue that minors are no longer incapacitated persons under Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5-8. We do not agree.

The definition of “incapacitated person” includes individuals unable to manage their property or to provide for self-care because of mental or physical illness, substance abuse, confinement, duress, fraud, undue influence, “or other incapacity.” Ind.Code § 29-3-1-7.5. By this inclusion of “or other incapacity,” the definition remains open to include the status of minority. Depending upon their age and maturity level, children are inherently limited in their capacity for self-sufficiency. Persons under eighteen years of age are additionally under a legal disability. Ind.Code § 34-1-67-1(6), -1(15). Because of such natural and legal incapacities, minor persons are clearly restrained in their ability to provide self-care or to fully manage their own property. Surely, our legislature did not intend to recognize a tort claims notice deadline exemption providing protection for incarcerated persons and those suffering from substance abuse, yet leaving children unprotected.

The notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed against limitation on a claimant’s right to bring suit. Tittle v. Mahan (1991), Ind., 582 N.E.2d 796, 800; Collier v. Prater (1989), Ind., 544 N.E.2d 497, 498.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

CRAWFORD v. OSU MEDICAL TRUST
2022 OK 25 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 2022)
Benjamin Crossing Homeowners' Ass'n v. Heide
961 N.E.2d 35 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2012)
Fox v. Rice
936 N.E.2d 316 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2010)
Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart
934 N.E.2d 1120 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2010)
City of Indianapolis v. Hicks ex rel. Richards
932 N.E.2d 227 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2010)
Marriage of Boone v. Boone
924 N.E.2d 649 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2010)
State v. Willits
773 N.E.2d 808 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2002)
Control Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson
762 N.E.2d 104 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2002)
Forte v. Connerwood Healthcare, Inc.
745 N.E.2d 796 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2001)
Durham Ex Rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International
745 N.E.2d 755 (Indiana Supreme Court, 2001)
Durham Ex Rel. Estate of Wade v. U-Haul International
722 N.E.2d 355 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2000)
Nesbitt v. Rising Sun
Indiana Supreme Court, 1999
E.N. Ex Rel. Nesbitt v. Rising Sun-Ohio County Community School Corp.
720 N.E.2d 447 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1999)
Polick v. Indiana Department of Highways
668 N.E.2d 682 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1996)
McGill v. Indiana Department of Correction
636 N.E.2d 199 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1994)
South Bend Community School Corp. v. Widawski ex rel. Page
626 N.E.2d 814 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1994)
South Bend Community Schools Corp. v. Widawski Ex Rel. Page
622 N.E.2d 160 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
622 N.E.2d 160, 1993 WL 421706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/south-bend-community-schools-corp-v-widawski-ex-rel-page-ind-1993.