As our attorneys can explain, there are some key differences between the two types of cases. On the positive side, with workers’ compensation, one does not need to prove the defendant/employer did anything wrong (i.e., was negligent). It’s a no-fault system, and payments should be made as long as the injury or death arose out of and in the course of one’s employment. However, recipients of death benefits cannot pursue certain types of damages, such as pain and suffering, loss of life enjoyment, or loss of consortium. Those damages are available in an Indiana wrongful death case.

Here, the plaintiff (the decedent’s mother) is asserting she was an independent contractor, and therefore the exclusive remedy provision of the law doesn’t apply, so she is free to pursue her claim in state court. The church is arguing she was an employee, and the exclusive remedy rule does apply, so the claim must be weighed by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board.

According to local news reports of the case, the decedent was a full-time university student and a member of the church’s congregation. For two months in 2015, the church hired her to work as a babysitter, under the direct supervision of the defendant pastors. She filled out an IRS Form W-9 when hired. This form is specifically intended for independent contractors. She babysat at the church on five occasions during those two months, both at the church and at the pastor’s private residence. She was paid on each occasion. She didn’t have a set work schedule at the church, but she accepted jobs with the church if they didn’t conflict with her other job at the university dining hall or her classes.

One evening, she was babysitting the defendants’ granddaughter at their residence. At around 3 p.m., someone found the decedent floating face down and unresponsive in the swimming pool. She was later pronounced dead. The coroner ruled the death accidental, but her mother insists the death is suspicious, given the fact that her daughter was a former lifeguard.

The church and the pastors insist that the young woman was their employee and that workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy.

The Indiana Court of Appeals sided with the girls’ mother in April. In reaching its decision, the appellate court looked at a 10-factor analysis to ascertain whether the decedent was an independent contractor or an employee. It considered the fact that she was a full-time student with another regular job, she worked irregular hours as a babysitter, she was paid for each babysitting job individually, she was free to accept or reject babysitting jobs, and no pay was withheld for taxes.

Now, the church, claiming the appellate court erred, is asking the Indiana Supreme Court to consider the question. The court has not yet indicated whether it will accept review of this Indiana wrongful death case.

Indiana Wrongful Death Attorney Burton A. Padove handles wrongful death and personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: FCC v. Olds, April 17, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: When Indiana Workers Suffer Injuries or Death, Third-Party Litigation Should be Considered, March 12, 2018, Munster Wrongful Death Attorney Blog

Back in 2014, attorneys for several of those injured and relatives of some killed reached a $50 million settlement against 19 of 20 defendants, including the state of Indiana, which paid $11 million. The details of how that settlement was paid out (which plaintiffs received what) was kept confidential. It was noteworthy not just for the size of the damages awarded, but also for the fact it was the first time in Indiana a lesbian widow received a settlement for the wrongful death of her wife.

The incident occurred in August 2011 when the opening act had just finished, and Sugarland was preparing to take the stage. A large gust of wind from an approaching severe thunderstorm hit the stage’s temporary roof structure, which caused it to collapse, landing on many in the crowd. The issue of foreseeability was raised because there were numerous reports, notices, and warnings throughout the day of the concert from the National Weather Service, indicating that severe thunderstorms were likely. These messages were received by state fair officials through the automated text messaging system.

In this most recent claim, the plaintiffs accused 35 defendants – including the security company – of playing some role in failing to act in shutting down the concert and protecting concertgoers. The plaintiffs alleged the security company owed a duty of care to both the band and those attending the concert.

Court records indicate there was no written contract between the state fair and the security company, but the fair hired the security company for the purpose of fulfilling the fair’s security obligations.

At around 6:30 p.m., the executive director for the fair called for an impromptu meeting because it appeared the bad weather was coming in close to the show time. The security company was not asked to attend that meeting, nor did it. The meeting was held about 1.5 hours later, and those involved decided to delay the show. However, the band didn’t want to delay the show. The state fair again held another meeting and again asked the band to delay. The band again refused. However, the security company wasn’t consulted on this. The state fair representatives later said they believed the band had the final say.

State fair representatives then went on stage and told the crowd that the show would go on but that they may need to halt it midway through. The state police captain was surprised by this and believed the show needed to be called off immediately. He then said to his colleagues, “We’re calling this off right now.” It was just before that announcement could be made that the stage collapsed due to the high wind.

The trial court granted the security firm’s motion for summary judgment, finding as a matter of law it owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the security company owed a duty of care to them. However, the appellate court affirmed.

Generally, in order to prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff needs to show the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff resulted from that breach. Absent duty, there can be no breach.

In this case, the court held that the duty was contingent on the foreseeability of the incident. Here, the court noted that the security company was never consulted as a decision-maker in the determination of whether the concert should be canceled or delayed. Furthermore, evidence was presented to indicate most security firms come to the stage assuming it is properly constructed and inspected. Possible stage collapse isn’t something most security firms contemplate, and thus, the company had no duty.

However, Indiana personal injury and wrongful death claims against other defendants may still proceed.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Jill et al v. ESG Security Inc., Dec. 27, 2016, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: Wrongful Death Lawsuit: INDOT Liable for Fatal Indiana Crash, Jan. 16, 2017, Highland Injury Attorney Blog