A component manufacturer is not immune from liability under the Indiana Product Liability Act; component manufacturer cannot automatically transfer all responsibility to the final manufacturer.
P. Mathias
McCarty v. State, No. 84A04-1707-CR-1599, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 20, 2018).
When placing a person on probation, the trial court must provide clear and specific written terms, including each condition of probation.
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.
Wamsley v. Tree City Village, No. 16A01-1706-CT-1355__ N.E.3d __(Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 28, 2018).
Trial court abused its discretion when it found that the failure to respond to the lawsuit by the defendant-landlords was the result of excusable neglect. Although landlords’ “status as a litigant may not rise to the level of ‘savvy’ and ‘sophisticated’…they are certainly experienced with litigation and the judicial procedural process through eviction proceedings, if nothing else” so inattention to the complaint and summons and their failure to consult with or discuss the suit with their insurer may constitute neglect, but it does not constitute excusable neglect under TR 60(B)(1).
Fort Wayne Community Schools v. Haney, No. 02A03-1708-CT-1829, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Feb. 5, 2018).
Teacher’s conduct, walking by and touching student’s posterior to induce her to sit back down into her seat, falls within the scope of the teacher’s statutory qualified immunity as a teacher managing a classroom; student’s § 1983 claim also fails because, as a matter of law, student failed to show that teacher’s conduct could have violated a clearly established right.