Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Michael B. Langford A. Jack Finklea Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES Kenneth J. Allen Michael T. Terwilliger William Lazarus Valparaiso, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 64S05-0601-CV-23 R & D TRANSPORT, INC., Appellant (Defendant below), v. A.H., a minor, and SARAH RICHARDSON, Individually and as parent and natural guardian of A.H., Appellees (Plaintiffs below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Porter Superior Court, No. 64D05-0408-CT-7012 The Honorable Raymond D. Kickbush, Special Judge _________________________________ On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 64A05-0502-CV-95 _________________________________ December 28, 2006 Sullivan, Justice.

Our Trial Rule 75(A) gives preference to certain counties as the place for a lawsuit to proceed. In this case, the trial court and the Court of Appeals held that because some personal property (orthotic devices and clothing) belonging to a victim of a motor vehicle accident had been damaged, the victim's home county (the place where the personal property was regularly

kept) enjoyed this preferential status. This was an incorrect interpretation of the trial rule and we accordingly reverse the decision of the trial court and the Court of Appeals.

Background

While driving a tractor-trailer owned by R & D Transport, Joseph Hazel had an accident with a vehicle in which A.H. was a passenger. The accident occurred in Dearborn County. Hazel's residence and R & D Transport's principal place of business are in Hendricks County. A.H. resides in Porter County.

Sarah Richardson, individually and as mother and guardian of A.H., filed a lawsuit in Porter County against Hazel and R & D Transport. The lawsuit sought damages for personal, physical, and psychological injuries and for the destruction and loss of A.H.'s "orthotic devices, clothing, and other chattels regularly located in Porter County." App. at 60. Hazel and R & D Transport sought to have the case transferred to either Hendricks County or Dearborn County. The trial court denied the motion. In an unpublished memorandum opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed. R & D Transport v. A.H., No. 64A05-0502-CV-95, slip op., 835 N.E.2d 232 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (table). R & D Transport sought, and we granted, transfer. R & D Transport v. A.H., 855 N.E.2d 996 (Ind. 2006) (table). Discussion

This is a case about "venue," a term which refers to "[t]he proper or a possible place for a lawsuit to proceed . . . ." Black's Law Dictionary 1591 (8th ed. 2004). We are asked to decide whether Porter County was the proper or a possible place for this lawsuit to proceed or whether the trial court should have transferred venue to Hendricks County or Dearborn County.

The rules for the possible and proper places for lawsuits to proceed in Indiana are set forth in this Court's Trial Rule 75(A). For purposes of this case, these rules can be summarized as follows:

2



Download R & D Transport, Inc. v. A.H., a minor and Sarah Richardson, Individually an

Indiana Law