For the bystander rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress, explosion and subsequent fire are not separate injury-producing events for purposes of the temporal factor. Also, the plaintiff did not need to see the body of his wife being removed from the exploded house when he possessed a reasonable degree of certainty that she had been in the house at the time of the explosion.
Appeals
Ind. Repertory Theatre, No. 21A-PL-628, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 4, 2022).
Insurance policy language “direct physical loss or direct physical damage” did not encompass theatre’s claim for loss of use of its facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic
Marshall v. State, No. 21A-CR-1123, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 7, 2022).
Upon a request for self-representation, the defendant should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish a knowing and intelligent decision.
Nick’s Packing Svcs., Inc. v. Chaney, No. 21A-SC-820, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2021).
Company who removed resident’s possessions during an eviction was a bailee of a mutual benefit bailment and had a duty to exercise ordinary care with resident’s possessions.
Lloyd v. Kuznar, No. 21A-CT-1338, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 28, 2021).
Trial court properly dismissed plaintiff’s claims because she failed to apprise the court of her new address, but the court should have set aside the default judgment on defendant’s counterclaim when the method of service on plaintiff was “nothing more than a mere gesture” because the defendant knew that the address for plaintiff was incorrect.