Plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of negligence per se to satisfy the duty element of a negligence claim.
T.H. v. State, No. 18S-JV-80,__ N.E.3d __(Ind., March 9, 2018)
Affirms the Court of Appeals opinion that no reasonable fact-finder could find the element of loss of at least $750 was proven beyond a reasonable doubt when there are unexplained anomalies in the repair estimate.
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.