Michael Louis Fansler

The case involved a railroad section foreman suing his employer for injuries from being struck by a passenger train, alleging negligence from a supervisor's statement that the train would use the passing track and from the train exceeding a town ordinance speed limit of four miles per hour. The trial court awarded damages to the plaintiff, but the appellate court reversed the judgment. The court reasoned that the supervisor's statement was not meant to be relied on, as he had directed the crew to stay clear until trains passed and the plaintiff disregarded that instruction despite a warning; additionally, towns lacked legislative authority to regulate train speeds except at highway crossings, so the ordinance did not apply to or protect a railroad employee working on the right of way.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatorylabor & employment

The case involved the conviction of the appellant for assault and battery with intent to commit a felony. The appellant sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence that a witness could testify the prosecuting witness made prior inconsistent statements, but the trial court denied the motion and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the trial court has discretion in such matters and did not abuse it here because ample evidence supported the conviction even without the prosecuting witness's testimony, and new trials are not granted solely to introduce impeachment evidence of out-of-court statements.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved the appellant's conviction for second-degree murder after he fatally shot his longtime friend in his home following an evening of drinking; the defense maintained the shooting was accidental while handling an old revolver and that the appellant's post-incident statements were unreliable due to temporary insanity or incoherence stemming from his war-related mental condition. The trial court overruled the motion for a new trial after giving instructions on intoxication and moral depravity but refusing defense instructions on temporary insanity and the weight to be given to statements made while possibly not conscious or sane. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the judgment, holding that the refused instructions on the defendant's mental state at the time of his statements were necessary for a fair presentation given the evidence and the intoxication instruction, and that proper instructions on motive and mental condition should be given on retrial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Hoelscher v. State, the appellant pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in 1943 and received a life sentence, then moved in 1944 to vacate the judgment and withdraw the plea, alleging he was not properly advised of his rights to counsel, jury trial, and other protections, that he was only 19 and lacked funds or understanding, and that the court failed to appoint counsel or explain lesser offenses and defenses. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed. The court reasoned that the record, including transcripts and affidavits, showed the defendant was advised of the charge, penalties, and his rights to counsel and jury trial, that he knowingly waived counsel and a trial, and that the plea was entered intelligently and voluntarily; it held that full instruction on all legal intricacies or defenses was not required when counsel is waived, and that minors may enter guilty pleas without special protections. The only issue was whether the plea was understandingly made, which the evidence supported.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves two lawsuits by passengers injured in a fatal car accident against the estate of the driver, seeking damages under Indiana's guest statute which requires proof of wanton and willful misconduct. The evidence showed the driver ignored repeated warnings from his passengers about speeding and erratic lane changes on icy roads at night, leading to a head-on collision. The jury found for the plaintiffs, awarding limited damages under the survival statute, and the court affirmed the judgments. The court reasoned that the evidence supported the misconduct finding, the passengers did not assume the risk or engage in contributory misconduct through their protests, and there were no prejudicial errors in the trial proceedings or interest award.

torts & liability

The case involved consolidated actions by insurance companies seeking to enjoin the Insurance Commissioner from enforcing a rule that prohibited issuing multi-year fire insurance policies with premiums payable in equal annual installments rather than in advance. The trial court granted the injunction, and the appellate court affirmed. The court reasoned that the relevant statute permits companies to deviate from bureau rates as long as the deviation is uniform across risks in a class, and the installment payment method did not constitute an unlawful deviation from rules or discrimination, especially given the long-standing practice and administrative interpretation allowing it. The court also found no improper inducement or discrimination in the participating policy dividends tied to renewals, as all policyholders were treated equally.

business & regulatory