Plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of negligence per se to satisfy the duty element of a negligence claim.
Civil
CTB, Inc. v. Tunis, No. 17A-CT-3066, No. 49A02-1704-CT-776,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 5, 2018).
A corporation’s “principal office,” for purposes of Trial Rule 75(A)(4), is its “registered office” under Indiana’s corporation law.
Hamilton v. Steak’n Shake Operations, Inc., No. 49A02-1704-CT-776,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 7, 2018).
Using the Goodwin/Rogers framework, when the broad type of plaintiff is a restaurant patron who has been subjected to escalating threats and taunts and the broad type of harm is injury resulting after the encounter culminated in physical violence, the defendant restaurant had a duty to take reasonable steps to provide for patron safety once the raucous behavior came to its attention.
Arkla Industries, Inc. v. Bendix-Westinghouse Automotive Air Brake Co., No. 87A01-1709-CC-2140, ,__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., March 8, 2018).
Defendant did not waive transfer to a preferred venue when the case was removed to federal court; trial court was required to transfer the case to defendant’s preferred venue upon remand to state court.
Wamsley v. Tree City Village, No. 16A01-1706-CT-1355__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).
Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the failure to respond to the lawsuit by the defendant-landlords was the result of excusable neglect. Although landlords’ “status as a litigant may not rise to the level of ‘savvy’ and ‘sophisticated’…they are certainly experienced with litigation and the judicial procedural process through eviction proceedings, if nothing else” so inattention to the complaint and summons and their failure to consult with or discuss the suit with their insurer may constitute neglect, but it does not constitute excusable neglect under TR 60(B)(1).