A legal battle over an overgrown bush has taken place at the Indiana Supreme Court.
A car accident that happened in a rural Indiana intersection; potentially due to an overgrown has reached the state’s highest court, pitting a private property owner against a seriously injured driver.
The Indiana Supreme Court is now weighing a critical question with statewide implications: When vegetation on private land blocks the view at an intersection, who is legally responsible for the consequences—the landowner or the county?
The case stems from a collision at a four-way intersection in Miami County, where driver Yerano Martinez claims his view of a stop sign was completely obscured by a large bush on Jeffrey Smith’s property. The resulting crash led Martinez to sue Smith for negligence.
In court, Smith’s defense rests on a long-standing Indiana legal precedent known as the “bright-line rule.” This rule, established in a previous case, holds that property owners are not liable for visual obstructions that are “wholly contained on a landowner’s property” and do not physically intrude onto the road itself. Both the initial trial court and the Indiana Court of Appeals sided with Smith, granting him victory based on this precedent.
Unsatisfied, Martinez appealed to the Supreme Court.
During oral arguments on Thursday, Martinez’s attorney, Scott Faultless, argued that this case is different. He contended that by blocking a vital piece of public infrastructure like a stop sign, the bush effectively interfered with the public right-of-way, even if its roots were on private land.
Representing the landowner, attorney Sheila Sullivan maintained that the responsibility lies with local government. She argued that counties employ staff to manage traffic safety and visibility. However, the justices pushed back, questioning whether underfunded rural counties have the resources to police every potential obstruction at thousands of intersections.
The debate in the courtroom mirrors a recent one at the Statehouse. During the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers introduced Senate Bill 183, which aimed to create a “line of sight triangle” at rural intersections and hold landowners or renters accountable for maintaining it. However, the bill ultimately died, and a version with much weaker language was passed in its place, leaving the issue unresolved.
A decision will be made within the next few weeks.
