Advertisement

June 17, 2013

Indiana Supreme Court Extends Law Enforcement Immunity To City In Dog Bite Case

The Indiana Supreme Court has limited local government liability for dog bites under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

In Davis v. Animal Control – City of Evansville, the Court unanimously held that plaintiffs cannot sue local governments for failure to enforce local animal control ordinances because those claims are barred by the law enforcement immunity under the Tort Claims Act.  In Davis, the City of Evansville was on notice that a dog was vicious. Evansville’s animal control ordinance required the removal of the animal.  Unfortunately, the animal was not captured and ultimately bit a young child.  The Court concluded that the crux of the plaintiff’s claim was that Evansville had failed to properly enforce the animal control ordinance and held that a claim based on this failure was barred by the law enforcement immunity applicable under the Tort Claims Act.

The Court’s full opinion can be found at: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06211101fsj.pdf

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Mark Crandley is a partner in the Litigation Department of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Indianapolis, Indiana office. Mr. Crandley has a diverse practice that concentrates on appeals, municipal and constitutional law, employee benefits, probate and guardianship matters as well as general commercial litigation.

317-261-7924

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.