Defendant’s criminal recklessness conviction vacated as violating double jeopardy prohibition because factfinder used the essential elements of armed robbery to establish the essential elements of criminal recklessness.
Appeals
Davis v. Lippert Components Manufacturing, Inc., No. 20A03-1710-CT-2435,__ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 13, 2018).
Injured worker was not a “user” or “consumer” entitled to relief under the Indiana Product Liability Act.
Stachowski v. Estate of Radman, No. 71A05-1708-CT-1776, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 14, 2018).
Plaintiff cannot rely on the doctrine of negligence per se to satisfy the duty element of a negligence claim.
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.