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.
Supreme
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.
Lewis v. State, No. 45S00-1601-LW-32, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Oct. 4, 2016).
The imposition of a sentence of life without parole was reversible error by the trial court because the sole aggravating factor supporting the sentence was not determined by the trier of fact beyond a reasonable doubt during the penalty phase. The Supreme Court concurred with defendant’s initial request, and in the interests of judicial economy, exercised their appellate prerogative and resentenced him to a total term of 88 years.
Bell v. State, No. 49S02-1609-CR-00501, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind., Sept. 29, 2016).
A trial court must consider a defendant’s ability to pay before entering a restitution order after hearing testimony of inability to pay without rebutting evidence.