Blog Topic

IMPD Officer Shelnutt at it Again?
Posted by: Steve Wagner
May 03, 2008

Yesterday two people were killed in Indianapolis when a van being followed by an IMPD officer ran a red light, struck an SUV, and then slammed into an Indygo bus.  Initial reports from the police stressed that the van was not being pursued by police.  Our sources tell us that was not what happened, and, in fact, the IMPD officer was chasing the van at high speeds in the middle of the day in downtown Indianapolis.  The officer involved was none other than Ronald Shelnutt, an officer whose name should be well known to Indianapolis citizens.

While it is too early to know for sure what happened yesterday, Shelnutt's involvement certainly raises concerns.  He was the same officer who shot and killed stockbroker John Leaf on May 5, 2001 in John Leaf's own bedroom.  I personally handled that case for the Leaf family, and it was vigorously litigated for over 4 years.  In January of 2006 the taxpayers of Marion County paid what was believed to be the largest voluntary settlement by the city or county in an civil rights claim with payments totalling $1,175,000.  During the course of that case we discovered a litany of citizen complaints against Shelnutt, both before and after the Leaf shooting.  In fact, in 2005 Shelnutt was involved in another high speed chase on Michigan Road which ended in two deaths.  A wrongful death lawsuit arising out of that incident remains pending in federal court.  Moreover, Shelnutt was sued for excessive force in two other cases where he allegedly turned his police dog loose on subjects after they surrendered.  Those cases were settled for confidential amounts.

The Marion County Sheriff Department should have fired Ronald Shelnutt a long time ago.  They didn't have the guts to do it, and neither has the IMPD since the merger.  I understand that Shelnutt was reassigned to spotter duty in a police helicopter at one time (where he presumably could do little harm), but unfortunately for the citizens of Indianapolis, he was allowed to return to road patrol.  More civil rights lawsuits are certainly likely to follow.  Let's hope this most recent tragedy was nothing more than a coincidence.  Stay tuned.

Permalink

Metal Baseball Bats Banned Due to Injuries
Posted by: Jason Reese
March 19, 2008

Recently, numerous states have banned the use of aluminum or metal baseball bats due to injuries. If you are any of your loved ones have been injured by an aluminum or metal baseball bat, call or email the attorneys at Wagner Reese & Crossen for additional information. Below please find several articles regarding the safety of metal and aluminum bats.

Study Looks at Metal Baseball Bat Safety

http://www.physorg.com/news111998954.html

Banning Metal Baseball Bats to Prevent Injuries in Youths and High Schoolers

http://blog.totalinjury.com/archives/cat-personal-injury-legislation-watch.html

Will Chicago Be First in Banning Dangerous Metal Baseball Bats in Little League Baseball

http://www.chicagoinjuryblog.com/2007/07/will_chicago_be_first_in_banni.html

New York City Bans Aluminum Bats

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/03/15/new-york-city-bans-aluminum-baseball-bats/

Aluminum Baseball Bats Replaced by Manufacturers and Distributors

http://injury.findlaw.com/injury/recall.feeds/cpsc/1976/04/76024.html

Aluminum Softball and Baseball Bat Warning

http://injury.findlaw.com/injury/recall.feeds/cpsc/1975/07/75053.html

Permalink

Personal Injury
Posted by: Jason Reese
January 10, 2008

Landowners Liable for Inadequate Security

Many states differ on when a landowner may be held liable for negligent or inadequate security. Crime victims may be subjected to rape, sexual assault, murdern, or shooting. Propert owners have a legal duty to provide a reasonable safe premises for customers and the public. Indiana law requires landowners to take steps to prevent reasonably foreseeable acts of third-parties when they know or should know that cirminal activity has occurred on the premises.

Security Trade Practices--Do Not Establish Legal Standard of Care

Allen v. Ramada Inn, Inc., 778 P.2d 291 (Colo. 1989)

Allen was a guest at a motel where she occupied a garden-level room. An intruder apparently entered her room through a window from which security bars had been removed and raped the plaintiff. The motel was allegedly in a high crime area and no window stops were placed on the windows.

During trial, the defense introduced testimony concerning the security measures and features of other hotels within the city. Plaintiff did not contest the introduction of this information but asked that a jury instruction be included stating that local security trade practices do not establish the legal standard of care. The trial judge declined to include the instruction and was subsequently reversed on appeal.

Liability Significance: The notion that if the adjacent property has a particular type of protection, so therefore I must have identical protection, is incorrect. The legal standard of care is the totality of the security measures and not any one specific measure.

Permalink

Personal Injury
Posted by: Jason Reese
January 09, 2008

Escalator Injury in China Leads to $3.5M Verdict in Massachusetts

A jury awarded $3.5 million to the family of a 4-year-old boy injured on an escalator in China. While riding the escalator, the boy's hand was trapped and nearly amputated. The verdict was based on the fact that the U.S. based company Otis Elevator Co. was involved in the production of the escalators. It was found that Otis Elevator Co. chose to go with a cheaper skirt panel on the escalators instead of a safer, more expensive skirt panel.

Full Story - http://www.masslaw.com/010408.cfm

Permalink