• Menu
  • Skip to left header navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

(317) 639-4511

  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter

Harrison Moberly LLP

Law Firm in Indianapolis, IN

  • HOME
  • PRACTICE AREAS
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • ATTORNEYS
    • A-K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • NEWS, EVENTS, & BLOGS
  • BILL PAY
  • LOCATIONS
  • Attorneys
    • A – K
      • Lisa M. Adler
      • Thaddeus R. Ailes
      • Stephen E. Arthur
      • Ashley A. Butz
      • Raeanna Carrell
      • William “Jay” Hancock
      • Natalie Hatfield
      • Lee L. Heyde
      • Don Hopper
    • L – Z
      • Patricia Polis McCrory
      • James J. McGrath
      • Tamie Jo Morog
      • Rory O’Bryan
      • Chad E. Oswald
      • Mark W. Pfeiffer
      • Fred D. Scott
      • Martha T. Starkey
      • David J. Theising
  • Practice Areas
    • Appellate Law
    • Bankruptcy & Debtor-Creditor Relations
    • Business Services
    • Construction Law
    • Employment Law
    • Environmental
    • Estate Planning, Wealth Transfer and Tax
    • Family Law
    • Insurance Services
    • Law Practice Succession Planning
    • Litigation Services
    • Mediation Roundtable LLC and Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Real Estate
    • Tax Controversy and Dispute Resolution
  • Bill Pay
  • Locations
  • (317) 639-4511

INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE: Employment at Will; Defamation v. Parody; and the Bystander Rule

June 1, 2007 //  by Stephen Arthur

INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE
Employment at Will; Defamation v. Parody; and the Bystander Rule
Stephen E. Arthur*

 

Indiana courts recently addressed Indiana’s employment at will doctrine, the mutual exclusivity of defamation and parody, and the Bystander Rule.

 

Employment at Will Doctrine

 

The employment at will doctrine permits either the employee or the employer to terminate the employment at any time for any reason. The Indiana Supreme Court examined the exceptions to this doctrine and whether an employee may maintain an action for retaliatory discharge in Meyers v. Meyers, 861 N.E.2d 704 (Ind. 2007). Meyers commenced a retaliatory discharge action alleging, in part, he had been fired because of complaints he had made about his employer’s failure to pay overtime wages and failure to deposit taxes withheld from employee payroll checks. The trial court dismissed this portion of the complaint. That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals, but affirmed by the Supreme Court on transfer. The Supreme Court found the case to be governed by Morgan Drive Away, Inc. v. Brant, 489 N.E. 2d 933 (Ind. 1986), which held that regardless of a party’s “allegations regarding status as an employee or independent contractor, the employment at will doctrine precludes him from asserting an action for wrongful discharge in retaliation for asserting a claim for unpaid wages under Indiana Code § 22-2-4-4.” The Court recognized that a retaliatory discharge claim may be asserted in limited circumstances, such as where an employee is terminated for asserting a Worker’s Compensation claim or refusing to violate a legal obligation that carries penal consequences. The Court concluded that none of these exceptions had been established in Meyer’s action.

 

Defamation v. Parody

 

Defamation is mutually exclusive of parody. By definition, defamation requires a false statement of fact. Parody, to the degree that it is perceived as parody by its intended audience, conveys the message that it is not the original and, therefore, cannot constitute a false statement of fact. These two types of speech were discussed in Hamilton v. Prewett, 860 N.E.2d 1234 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). There, the defendant created a website titled “Paul Hamilten – The World’s Smartest Man” which involved an individual who owned a water softener company. The website included satirical customer testimonials regarding how the fictional Hamilten’s water would attract women, cure severe facial disfigurement, or raise a low intelligence quotient to the level of a rocket scientist. The website included a disclaimer which provided “The character described in this page is fictional, any similarities to a real person is [sic] coincidence and the page is meant for humor.”

 

The fictional Paul Hamilten shared a name with the plaintiff, except for a single letter difference in the spelling. The defendant never denied that the fictional Hamilten was a reference to Hamilton or his water softening business. Upon discovering the website, the plaintiff sued claiming, among other things, the website had defamed him. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant and the plaintiff appealed. The Indiana Court of Appeals, noting that this was an issue of first impression, held that the website was a form of parody and, therefore, not defamation under Indiana law. Specifically, to impose liability for defamation, a false statement of fact must be proven. Parody, in contrast, involves exaggeration or distortion and is the means by which the author “clearly indicates to his audience that the piece does not purport to be a statement of fact but is rather an expression of criticism or opinion.” The court stated defamation and parody are two mutually exclusive forms of speech. Accordingly, because of the exaggerated nature of the website statements, no one reasonably could have believed the website actually contained statements of fact. Thus, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment.

 

The Bystander Rule

 

Indiana law allows a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress under some limited circumstances even where the plaintiff has suffered no physical injury or impact as a result of the defendant’s negligence. In fact, a bystander may recover damages based on “direct involvement” with the accident. “Direct involvement” may be proven where a plaintiff actually witnessed or came on the accident scene soon after the death or severe injury of a loved one with a relationship to the plaintiff analogous to a spouse, parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling caused by the defendant’s negligence. Factors the court may consider in determining whether public policy precludes liability for bystander recovery include the “severity of the victim’s injury, the relationship of the plaintiff to the victim, and circumstances surrounding the plaintiff’s discovery of the victim’s injury.” Each factor presents an issue of law properly decided by the court.

 

In Smith v. Toney, 2007 WL 739867 (Ind. 2007), the Indiana Supreme Court examined the requirements for asserting a bystander claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiff, Smith, was engaged to marry Welch. The couple fell asleep at Smith’s home. In the early morning hours, Welch left Smith’s home, informing Smith that he would call her upon reaching his home. Welch was involved in a fatal car accident. Later, Smith awoke, realized that Welch had not called her, and decided to drive to Welch’s home. Enroute, and almost two hours after Welch had died in the accident, Smith drove by the wreckage. Smith slowed her car but did not stop or speak to anyone. Prior to Smith driving past the accident scene, Welch’s body had been removed from the automobile, placed in a body bag, and moved to the coroner’s vehicle. Smith later told her brother-in-law that she had observed her fiancée’s hand as she drove by the accident scene.

 

The Court first examined the “analogous to a spouse” requirement, and concluded as a matter of law that a fiancée is not analogous to a spouse and, therefore, may not recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court next examined the circumstances under which a bystander who happens onto an accident scene involving a loved one may assert a negligent infliction claim. The Court stated that “bystander” claims are not meant to compensate every emotional trauma, but are limited to those that arise from the shock of experiencing a traumatic event. Recovery will be permitted only where the bystander witnesses the accident or aftermath of an accident “minutes” after the event and while the victim remains at the accident scene. The scene viewed by the bystander must be essentially the same as it was at the time of the accident, the victim must be essentially in the same condition as immediately following the incident, and the bystander must not have been informed of the incident before witnessing the accident scene. A claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress will not be permitted where the bystander learns of the death or injury by indirect means.

 

__________________________________________________ _________________________

 

*Stephen Arthur is a partner with Harrison & Moberly, LLP (harrisonmoberly.com), in Indianapolis, concentrating his practice in federal and state complex business litigation. He is the author of Civil Trial Practice, published by West Publishing, and co-author of Professor Harvey’s Rules of Procedure Annotated. The author wishes to thank Paul Carroll for his assistance in the preparation of this case review. The opinions and analysis expressed in this column are those of the author.

You May Also Be Interested In:

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Execute Documents Remotely

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Virtual Estate Services

Estate Administration During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

Harrison & Moberly proudly sponsors 2019 APABA-IN Central Regional Conference

Hopper Appointed as Member of the Probate Code Study Commission

Previous Post: « INDIANA CASE REVIEW: Mechanic?s Liens
Next Post: INDIANA CASE LAW UPDATE: Interpleader Actions, Service, and Newly Discovered Evidence »

Primary Sidebar

Twitter

26 Sep 1574502378233122816

HM is excited to announce that Lisa M. Adler and Ashley A. Butz, members of the firm’s estate planning practice, have been named members to the Estate Planning Council of Indianapolis.

Reply on Twitter 1574502378233122816Retweet on Twitter 1574502378233122816Like on Twitter 15745023782331228161Twitter 1574502378233122816
30 Aug 1564625082563137548

Harrison Moberly is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2023 Best Lawyers!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison Moberly is proud to
Reply on Twitter 1564625082563137548Retweet on Twitter 1564625082563137548Like on Twitter 15646250825631375481Twitter 1564625082563137548
25 Feb 1497260344577867776

Harrison & Moberly, LLP is proud to recognize and congratulate its 2022 Super Lawyers and Rising Star!

https://t.co/dtMUm1Bzfk

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly, LLP is
Reply on Twitter 1497260344577867776Retweet on Twitter 1497260344577867776Like on Twitter 1497260344577867776Twitter 1497260344577867776
1 Jun 2021 1399791212056530945

Harrison & Moberly is pleased to officially return to the Downtown office today and celebrated the occasion with a Taco Tuesday lunch to catch up with each other in person!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: Harrison & Moberly is pleased
Reply on Twitter 1399791212056530945Retweet on Twitter 1399791212056530945Like on Twitter 13997912120565309451Twitter 1399791212056530945
18 Nov 2019 1196439093527416833

For the 3rd year, H&M Attorneys Mark Pfeiffer and Fred Scott attended the 2019 Tippecanoe County Veterans Stand Down event on November 2, 2019, to provide pro bono legal advice on issues that routinely impact Indiana veterans! We are so grateful for their dedication and service!

Twitter feed video.
Image for the Tweet beginning: For the 3rd year, H&M
Reply on Twitter 1196439093527416833Retweet on Twitter 1196439093527416833Like on Twitter 11964390935274168331Twitter 1196439093527416833
Load More...

Recent Posts

Estate Planning Considerations for New Parents

Starting a family involves preparation and thinking ahead. …

David Theising to Speak at 2021 Annual Meeting of ABA Forum on Construction Law in New York City

Harrison & Moberly attorney David Theising has been invited …

Execute Documents Remotely

We will soon be able to assist clients in executing their estate …

Parenting Time During Governor Holcomb’s Stay at Home Order

During the current World upheaval, parents are looking for …

Estate Planning During Coronavirus & Social Distancing

During this frightening time, we are all reminded of life’s …

Footer

INDIANAPOLIS
(317) 639-4511

8335 Keystone Crossing
Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46240

CARMEL
(317) 639-4511

760 S Rangeline Road
Suite 164
Carmel, IN 46032

LEBANON
(317) 639-4511

114 South Meridian St.
Suite A
Lebanon, IN 46052

Site Footer

The information contained on this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipients of content from this site, clients or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state.

Copyright © 2023 Harrison and Moberly LLP · All Rights Reserved ·