## Facts

- Two tort actions against the State of Indiana were consolidated on appeal.
- In *Campbell*, motorists alleged they were injured in a head-on collision on State Road 221, a state-maintained highway, after repaving left the road without adequate no-passing markings and warning signs; they also alleged the condition constituted a nuisance.
- In *Knotts*, a pedestrian alleged injuries from a fall on a crosswalk at Market Street and Monument Circle in Indianapolis, asserting the crosswalk was in negligent disrepair; the location was part of the state highway system maintained by the State.
- In both cases, the State asserted sovereign immunity as a complete bar to liability.

## Issues

1. Whether sovereign immunity barred negligence (and nuisance) claims against the State for alleged failures in the maintenance and marking of public ways that allegedly breached duties owed to private individuals.
2. Whether the State could claim broader tort immunity than municipal corporations and counties for operational negligence in maintaining highways and related facilities.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court held that sovereign immunity was no longer a valid defense for the State beyond the limited extent it remained available to municipal corporations and counties.
- The Court concluded the plaintiffs’ complaints alleged negligent breach of duties owed to private individuals in the construction, maintenance, and marking of public ways, and were not barred on sovereign immunity grounds.
- The Court reversed the dismissals and remanded both cases for further proceedings on the merits.

## Legal Principles

- The State of Indiana is subject to tort liability for negligent performance of operational functions, including maintaining and marking highways and similar public facilities, when a duty to private individuals is alleged.
- Sovereign immunity does not shield the State to a greater extent than any immunity recognized for municipal corporations and counties in comparable negligence actions.
- Courts may permit negligence claims to proceed where pleadings allege specific failures in maintenance or warning measures affecting identifiable road users or pedestrians, rather than challenging core legislative or policy choices.
- Tort liability serves loss allocation goals by placing accident costs on the governmental actor better positioned to prevent harm and spread risk.

## Conclusion

The court limited Indiana’s sovereign immunity doctrine and allowed negligence and related claims against the State to proceed where plaintiffs alleged operational failures in maintaining and marking public ways, reversing dismissals based solely on sovereign immunity and remanding for litigation on the merits.


Campbell v. State, 284 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. 1972)