Although proof of the violation of a safety regulation creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence, it is a question for the jury whether the violation may be excused or justified because the actions might be reasonably expected by a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.
Civil
Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners, No. 30S01-1510-MI-626, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).
Fortville cannot annex land because the town did not need the territory for its development in the reasonably near future.
Siner v. Kindred Hospital LP, No. 49S05-1604-CT-219, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 28, 2016).
In this medical malpractice case, the defendants’ own designated evidence revealed conflicting medical opinions on the element of causation creating a genuine issue of material fact.
Stewart v. Alunday, No. 16A04-1507-CT-760, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App, April 28, 2016).
Judicial admissions are conclusive and binding on the trier of fact.
Citizens Action Coalition of Ind. v. Koch, No. 49S00-1510-PL-00607, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., April 19, 2016).
Whether the work product exception within the Indiana Access to Public Records Act applies to the Indiana General Assembly is a non-justiciable question.