WARSAW — A motion for summary judgment made by Barnett’s Bail Bonds, Warsaw, in a lawsuit by Atta and Larry Helman was taken under advisement in Kosciusko Circuit Court on Friday, Jan. 3.

The Helmans are suing Barnett’s Bail Bonds and three bounty hunters for their involvement in the Aug. 25, 2014, shooting and death of Gary Helman. The bounty hunters went to a residence in Cromwell to serve outstanding warrants that Gary had, which resulted in a gunfight. Gary’s mother, Atta; and his twin brother, Larry; are seeking compensatory damages, with the amount to be determined.

Present in the courtroom for proceedings included Bradley Colborn, representing the Helmans; and Jay Rigdon, representing Barnett’s Bail Bonds.

A motion for summary judgment is a request for the court to rule that the other party; in this case, the Helmans, has no case because there are no facts at issue. Barnett’s Bail Bonds, the party making the issue, is claiming that either the case should not go before a jury at all or a jury could only rule in favor of Barnett’s.

Currently, this lawsuit is set for a four-day jury trial from April 21 to 24.

Barnett’s Bail Bonds filed a motion for summary judgment on Sept. 16, 2019; a response to the motion by the Helmans was filed on Dec. 13, 2019.

On behalf of Barnett’s, Rigdon argued three points in support of its motion for summary judgment. The first point is that the three bounty hunters involved in this case, Tadd S. Martin, Daniel S. Foster and Michael C. Thomas, were not Barnett’s employees. The second point argued was that the three were independent contractors and that Barnett’s has no liability under Indiana law for their actions. The third point argued that the intervening cause was the true basis for any and all damages claim of the plaintiffs.

Colborn presented arguments to deny Barnett’s motion for summary judgment. He argued that the relationship between bounty hunters and bondsmen is viewed by the state of Indiana as a pure agency relationship. Colborn argued that Barnett’s specifically entered a contractual relationship with the involved bounty hunters in order to grant them powers under an agency relationship to apprehend Gary Helman.

In response to Rigdon’s second point, Colborn said Barnett’s had a non-delegable duty after setting a plan in motion that resulted in a shooting and a murder. Since the incident occurred at Atta’s home, which did not belong to Gary, Colborn described the bounty hunters as “armed thugs,” entering a home that did not belong to Gary.

Judge Reed said he will enter a ruling on the motion for summary judgment within 30 days.