Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Romero v. Brady

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 13, 2014

BRITTNEY L. ROMERO, Appellant-Plaintiff,
v.
TEDDY BRADY and ADVANTAGE TANK LINES, LLC, Appellees-Defendants,

APPEAL FROM THE SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT. The Honorable Roger L. Duvall, Judge. Cause No. 72C01-1104-CT-5.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: AMY R. WHEATLEY, NICHOLAS F. STEIN, Law Office of Nicholas F. Stein, New Albany, Indiana.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: BRYAN J. DILLON, F. LARKIN FORE, SARAH M. FORE, Fore Miller & Schwartz, Louisville, Kentucky.

BARNES, Judge. ROBB, J., and BROWN, J., concur.

OPINION

BARNES, Judge

Case Summary

Brittney Romero appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Teddy Brady and Advantage Tank Lines, LLC., (" Advantage" )

Page 1167

(collectively, " the Appellees" ). We reverse.

Issue

Romero raises one issue, which we restate as whether the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Appellees.

Facts

On October 21, 2010, Romero was driving her car southbound on I-65 in Scott County. Romero was traveling in the left lane, and Brady, who is employed by Advantage, was driving a tractor-trailer in the right lane behind Jonathan Stigler, who was driving a box truck. After Romero passed Brady, Stigler swerved into the left lane, causing Romero to drive off the left shoulder, lose control of her car, and drive perpendicularly into the right lane, in front of Brady's truck. Brady's truck collided with Romero's car, and she suffered extensive injuries as a result of the collision.

Romero filed an amended complaint alleging that Stigler, Brady, and Advantage were negligent. Romero settled with Stigler, and she dismissed her claim against him. The Appellees filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Brady did not owe Romero a duty to maintain a certain distance behind Stigler's truck. The Appellees also argued that, even if Brady was following Stigler's truck too closely, " there is no dispute that Brady had no part in causing Romero's vehicle to leave the roadway or to travel into his lane of travel." Id. at 58. Romero responded by arguing that Brady owed her a duty of reasonable care. The trial court granted the Appellees' motion for summary judgment because Brady did not owe Romero a duty, Brady did not violate any duty owed to Romero, and " [t]he link in causation is ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.