Expert medical testimony is still necessary in small claims proceedings, unless a layperson can readily understand the causation.
Civil
Rose v. Martin’s Super Markets LLC, No. 18A-CT-1654, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2019).
Grocery store had no duty to customer prior to shooting, because it was not reasonably foreseeable for a grocery store to expect death by gunfire to befall a customer. Because the grocery store did not have knowledge of customer’s injury in time to offer her assistance, the store also had no duty to protect her from exacerbation of her injuries.
Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Weaver, No. 18A-CT-2043, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 1, 2019).
The term “using” is ambiguous in an auto insurance policy, because its meaning is susceptible to differing interpretations by reasonable persons; “using” is not synonymous with “operating.”
Barrand v. Martin, No. 18A-JP-1796, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 1, 2019).
The Court of Appeals urges all trial courts to “carefully consider the possible impact of SSR benefits when determining whether to provide a credit to a non-custodial parent for his or her child support obligation.”
Perkins v. Fillio, No. 18A-PL-2278, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 19, 2019).
For a premises liability claim regarding a headbutting ram, trial court erred in granting summary judgment because it is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether rams are dangerous as a class of animals and, if so, a genuine issue as to whether Defendant took reasonable measures to prevent the ram from causing harm to invitees.