On rehearing, the Court recognizes the practical difficulties that businesses may face in securing affirmative consent to contract modifications from existing customers and notes that it leaves open the possibility of adopting, in the future, a different standard governing the offer and acceptance of unilateral contracts between businesses and consumers.
Supreme
Korakis v. Memorial Hospital of South Bend, No. 23S-CT-109, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 25, 2024).
A medical expert does not need to expressly state the applicable standard of care in his affidavit, it can be inferred from substantively sufficient information.
Zaragoza v. Wexford of Ind., LLC, No. 23S-CT-99, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 25, 2024).
The trial court should not have granted summary judgment. An inmate must rely on prison authorities for their medical needs. If they aren’t meeting those needs, the courts must not prematurely close their doors to a potentially meritorious claim.
Pennington v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, Inc., No. 23S-CT-182, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 9, 2024).
The test for civil liability for conditions on the land looks at whether the danger posed by the specific condition involved was foreseeable, but the test for activities on the land looks at whether it was foreseeable that a general class of persons to which the plaintiff belonged might suffer the general type of harm involved.
Expert Pool Builders, LLC v. Vangundy, No. 23S‐PL‐171, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Jan. 2, 2024).
A party’s opposition to the motion for default judgment preserved its challenge for appeal and it was not required to also file a T.R. 60(B) motion.