Expert medical testimony is still necessary in small claims proceedings, unless a layperson can readily understand the causation.
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.”
Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091, __US__ (Feb. 20, 2019).
Seizure of man’s Land Rover violated protections against excessive fines under the Eighth Amendment applicable to the States under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.