A date has been set for Circuit Court Judge Michael Reed to hear arguments on a motion to dismiss a lawsuit in connection with the shooting death of Gary Helman in Cromwell in 2014.
The hearing was set for 3 p.m. Nov. 29 in Kosciusko Circuit Court Friday afternoon, according to attorneys for the plaintiff.
After attorneys for both sides make their case, Reed will decide whether the case is allowed to move forward.
Gary Helman died during a shootout with bail recovery agents who went to his residence where he lived with his mother, Atta Belle Helman, and brother, Larry Helman, to serve a warrant.
Larry and one of the bond recovery agents, Tadd Martin, was injured in the shootout.
No criminal charges were filed.
The lawsuit filed by Atta Belle and Larry Helman seeks compensatory damages for medical and psychological bills, lost wages and emotional distress. No dollar figure has been listed.
Named as defendants in the suit are Barnett’s Bail Bonds Inc., The Papers Inc., Stacey Staley, Tadd S. Martin, Daniel S. Foster and Michael C. Thomas.
The motion to dimiss the suit was filed by The Papers Inc., who had Staley employed as a reporter at the time.
The Papers claims “the plaintiffs failed to show the publishing company was negligent in failing to train and supervise its employee,” court records state.
The Papers also argues the case should be dismissed since they couldn’t have predicted the events and they were not responsible for Staley’s actions.
Staley left the company shortly after the incident.
The suit claims Staley used her a position as reporter in order to interview Gary at his residence in order to provide information to the bail recovery agents.
Staley provided facts about the layout of the house, the number of people there and the clothes they were wearing to the agents.
Afterward, the agents acted on information provided by Staley and went to the residence. During the agent’s attempt to apprehend Gary, the gunfight ensued and Gary was killed, the suit states.
In their response, attorneys for the Helmans state “The argument of the defense seems to be that because a warrant had been issued for Gary Helman, it was perfectly fine for The Papers and their employee to work in concert with armed bail recovery agents to arrange for a violent home invasion.”
The plaintiffs argue that Indiana law does not provide immunity for bail recovery agents for their adverse actions nor are they given a right to execute warrants.
(Story By Michael Anderson, Times Union)
