Preview:

FOR PUBLICATION
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: DOUGLAS C. HOLLAND Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES: M. MICHAEL STEPHENSON McNeely, Stephenson, Thopy & Harrold Shelbyville, Indiana

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
SEAN T. LACHENMAN, as Personal Representative for the Estate of CHERE LACHENMAN, Appellant-Plaintiff, vs. MITCHELL STICE and JOSEPHINE STICE, Appellees-Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No.15A01-0503-CV-113

APPEAL FROM THE DEARBORN CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable James D. Humphrey, Judge Cause No. 15C01-0302-CT-11

November 30, 2005 OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION SULLIVAN, Judge

Appellant-Plaintiff, Sean T. Lachenman, as the personal representative of the estate of Chere Lachenman ("Lachenman"), challenges the trial court's grant of partial

summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendants, Mitchell Stice and Josephine Stice (collectively "the Stices"), and also challenges the trial court's rulings on the Stices' motion in limine. Upon appeal, Lachenman claims that summary judgment was

improperly granted because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Lachenman may recover on her claims of intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and that the trial court erred in ruling to exclude evidence regarding the vicious propensity of the Stices' dogs and the value of Lachenman's pet dog. We affirm. The record reveals that at the time relevant to this appeal, Lachenman and the Stices lived in the Hidden Valley Lake housing addition in Lawrenceburg, Indiana. 1 Lachenman owned lots 2978 and 2979, and the Stices lived on lot 2976. Apparently separating their lots is lot 2977, owned by Gary L. Miller. Lachenman owned a Jack Russell terrier. The Stices owned a German Shepard dog and an English bulldog. Prior to the incident which led to the case upon appeal, the Stices' dogs ran loose, and on one occasion, chased Lachenman's dog onto the deck attached to her house. Although Lachenman in her affidavit describes this incident as an "attack," during her deposition, she explained that the Stices' dogs came running toward her deck, where her dog was, and that she had to restrain the Stices' dogs by holding onto their collars. There is no indication that Lachenman's dog was injured during this incident.
1

The "Statement of Facts" section of Lachenman's appellant's brief consists of verbatim quotations from three affidavits submitted by Lachenman in support of her motion for partial summary judgment. We would direct Lachenman's counsel to Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(6)(c), which provides that the statement of facts "shall be in narrative form and shall not be a witness by witness summary of the testimony." (emphasis supplied).

2

On September 30, 2002, Lachenman was on her deck with her dog when she was distracted by a telephone call from work. Lachenman went inside her house for seven to eight minutes, and after she hung up the phone, she heard a "horrible" noise. Realizing the noise was being made by a dog, Lachenman went back onto her deck and saw the Stices' dogs attacking her dog in the lake which abuts Lachenman's property. 2 The Stices' dogs were standing in shallow water, and Lachenman's dog was swimming, trying to get back to land. Whenever Lachenman's dog got near the shore, the Stices' dogs would attack it. Mrs. Stice was standing near her dogs, holding leashes which were not attached to her dogs' collars. 3 Lachenman eventually went into the water, and called to her dog, but the Stices' dogs would not release it. Eventually, the dogs let go, and Lachenman's dog swam to her. Lachenman took her dog to the veterinarian to treat its wounds. The veterinarian treated the dog's wounds, but the terrier died on October 3, 2002. No person was bitten or otherwise hurt during this incident. After this incident, the Hidden Valley Lake Property Owner's Association declared the Stices' German Shepard dog a "vicious" dog and fined the Stices for failing to follow the Association's guidelines. On December 3, 2002, Lachenman's neighbor, Mr. Miller, was in his attached garage unloading his truck with his dogs approximately fifteen feet away from him in his front yard. Mr. Stice opened his garage door, and his German Shepard came running at
Mrs. Stice stated in her deposition that it was Lachenman's terrier which was the aggressor. For purposes of summary judgment, however, we must consider the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Lachenman.
3 2

Lachenman stated that Mrs. Stice said she eventually jumped in the water and grabbed her

dogs.

3

Mr. Miller's dogs. Mr. Miller called his dogs into the garage, but Mr. Stice's dog came into the garage and mauled one of Mr. Miller's Pomeranian dogs. Mr. Stice attempted to pull his dog off of Mr. Miller's dog, punching his dog in the side. Mr. Stice's dog bit Mr. Stice in the hand, causing him to bleed as he continued to hit his dog. As Mr. Stice finally got ahold of his German Shepard dog and began to lead it away with a choke chain, his English bulldog came running into Mr. Miller's garage. Mr. Miller grabbed at this dog, which lunged at his face, knocking Mr. Miller down as he threw the dog out of the way. The bulldog followed Mr. Stice away. Mr. Miller took his injured dog to an animal hospital. It had broken ribs, had to have cuts stitched, and had tubes placed in its side. On April 19, 2003, the Stices' German Shepard dog attacked and mauled another dog, one belonging to Wende Penny, who apparently also lives near the Stices. This attack occurred on Ms. Penny's property, and neither of the Stices' dogs was on a leash. On February 19, 2003, Lachenman filed a complaint against the Stices. The complaint alleged that the Stices were liable pursuant to Indiana Code

Download Sean T. Lachenman v. Mitchell & Josephine Stice.pdf

Indiana Law