P. Mathias

Injured worker was not a “user” or “consumer” entitled to relief under the Indiana Product Liability Act.

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).

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.

Jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”) does not equate to subject matter jurisdiction, and is therefore waivable

The Court of Appeals issued a reminder that trial court magistrates do not have the authority to enter final judgments in civil cases, including juvenile cases.