WARSAW — A summary judgment has been denied in the lawsuit by Atta Belle Helman and Larry Dwayne Helman over the shooting death of their son and twin brother, Gary Helman, Aug. 25, 2014. The Helmans brought suit against the parties involved in Gary Helman’s death June 6, 2016. The plaintiffs remaining in the case include Barnett’s Bail Bonds, Tadd Martin, Michael Thomas, Daniel Foster and Lexington National Insurance Corporation.

The denial of the summary judgment sends the case closer to the scheduled four-day jury trial to begin April 21.

Gary Helman was killed after Martin, Thomas and Foster went to his Cromwell residence to serve outstanding felony warrants. A gunfight ensued, killing Helman and seriously injuring Martin as well as Larry Helman. The lawsuit is seeking compensatory damages, with the amount to be determined. The case was filed

A hearing on the motion for summary judgment was held Jan. 3, in Kosciusko Circuit Court before Judge Michael Reed. The hearing was requested by the defendant, Barnett’s Bail Bonds Inc.

The order states the motion for summary judgment was addressed regarding count 15 and count 16 of the plaintiff’s second amended complained, filed Feb. 8, 2018. Count 15 refers to the “vicarious liability” of Barnett’s Bail Bonds for the conduct of its employee-servants Martin, Thomas and Foster, while Count 16 is similar but notes the three men were independent contractors.

Court documents state Barnett’s motion was based on the propositions that at no time relevant to the Helman complaint were Martin, Thomas and Foster employees of Barnetts, but independent contractors and an intervening cause was the true basis for any and all damages claimed of the defendant. Reed noted after hearing counsel for Helman’s argue that the basis for Count 15 in general was that of agency and the basis for Count 16 was Barnett’s could be held liable for the actions of their independent contractors under multiple exception theories in applicable law.

“In general the court believes the arguments made by plaintiffs are appropriate and that multiple factual issues exist with respect to plaintiff’s counts 15 and 16 which must be determined by the fact-finder at trial and that these facts must then be applied under applicable legal principles. This makes the entry of summary judgment inappropriate at this time.

“Similarly, multiple factual issues exist which must be resolved by the fact-finder at trial with respect to defendant’s argument that an intervening cause was the true basis for any and all damages claimed by the plaintiffs. This also makes entry of summary judgment inappropriate at this time.”