Supreme Court agreed with Court of Appeals opinion affirming defendant’s conviction and sentence but vacated language that found sentencing argument to be specious and unsupported by cogent reasoning.
Supreme
Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, No. 27S02-1510-CT-627, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Oct. 26, 2016).
“In a negligence action, whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. And in those instances where foreseeability is an element of duty, this necessarily means the court must determine the question of foreseeability as a matter of law. “
Rogers v. Martin, No. 02S05-1603-CT-114, __N.E.3d__ (Ind., Oct. 26, 2016).
Although landowner had no duty to protect an invitee from an unforeseeable harm, she did have a duty to protect the invitee from the foreseeable exacerbation of the injury occurring in her home. Under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, a person does not “furnish” alcohol by providing it to someone who already possesses it.
Patchett v. Lee, Inc., No. 49S02-1610-PL-532, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 21, 2016).
“[T]he rationale of Stanley v. Walker applies equally to reimbursements by government payers… The reduced amount is thus a probative, relevant measure of the reasonable value of the plaintiff’s medical care that the factfinder should consider.”
Adams v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., No. 49S02-1610-PL-532, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 12, 2016).
Inmates had no private right of action to pursue wage claims against a privately owned company where they worked while inmates in the Indiana Department of Correction.