The Comparative Fault Act does not require that a jury allocate some fault to every actor who proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury, but permits the allocation of any percentage or no percentage of fault to a party or nonparty who caused or contributed to cause the injury.
Civil
Dermatology Assoc., P.C. v. White, No. 49A02-1512-PL-2189, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App, Jan. 19, 2016).
To trigger the 180-day statute of limitations extension for a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must show that she has subsequently acquired knowledge of or received information about something she did not previously know with regard to her injury and $15,000 is insufficient to compensate her for that more serious injury.
Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Watson, No. 45A03-1607-MI-1538, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App, Jan. 23, 2016).
Although labeled otherwise, plaintiff’s Motion to Issue a Valid Driver’s License Credential effectively asked the trial court to engage in judicial review of an agency action and plaintiff was required to comply with the Indiana Administrative Orders and Procedures Act.
Kennedy Tank & Mfg. Co., Inc. v. Emmert Industrial Corp., No. 49S02-1608-CT-431, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Jan. 3, 2016).
Indiana’s 10-year statute of limitations is not preempted by the federal statute of limitations in the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act.
Polet v. ESG Security, Inc., No. 49A02-1510-CT-1631, __N.E.3d__ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2016).
Where foreseeability is an element of duty, the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law; stage collapse due to high wind is not foreseeable as a matter of law.