Arthur R. Baxter, Jr. -- Indiana Attorney At Law

Indiana Supreme Court Monthly Wrap Up
January, 2006

The Indiana Supreme Court issued two decisions in January 2006 that were of particular interest in the area of civil litigation.

In Willis v. Westerfield, the Court explained the proper circumstances for a defendant to take advantage of the "sudden emergency" defense. The law has long required no more from a person than is reasonable to expect in the event of an emergency. An emergency is deemed to be a situation that leaves no time for deliberation. The Willis case held that a defendant is not required to raise the "sudden emergency" defense in his answer to the complaint and may raise it for the first time at trail. The Court also clarified that a defendant is not always required to support with expert testimony a defense of "failure to mitigate damages." Where the determination requires a medical question beyond the common knowledge of a layman, however, expert testimony is required.

In Lasater v. House, the Court considered the application of the heasay rule to a will contest matter. The court drew an important distinction between will contests that are based on undue influence as opposed to will contests based on lack of testmentary capacity. Holding that the testator's hearsay should not be admitted in the undue influence context, the court reasoned that any statement of the testator concerning whether there was undue influence would amount to a statement as to the truth of the very matter at issue and would thus constitute inadmissible hearsay. The Court also noted that in cases where the testator's mental capacity is at issue, the testator's out of court statements would not be subject to exclusion by the hearsay rule. Statements concerning mental conditions have traditionally escaped coverage of the hearsay rule.



BACK TO ARTICLES