Bar failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe patron a duty to protect him from criminal activity in its parking lot; the altercation occurred immediately after the Saturday night/Sunday morning crowd had been herded out of the bar at closing time and the bar had a history of reported incidents that gave it reason to contemplate further such incidents in its own parking lot.
T. Crone
Thompson v. State, No. 18A-CR-1947, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 15, 2019).
A person placed on pretrial home detention earns accrued time (calculated at a day for a day) pursuant to Ind. Code 35-50-6-3.1 and a trial court has no discretion to deny it.
In re W.R.H., No. 18A-JP-1770, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., March 11, 2019).
A court cannot change legal custody of a child when a parent files a notice of intent to relocate, unless a parent specifically requests a change of custody.
Buddy & Pals III, Inc. v. Falaschetti, No. 18A-CT-1811, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Jan. 18, 2019).
Summary judgment was properly denied because the court found that the bar failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe patron a duty to protect him from another patron’s criminal act.
Denson v. Estate of Dillard, No. 18A-CT-1112, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2018).
Summary judgment was properly granted in a negligence action. Because the Defendant’s sudden physical incapacity was not reasonably foreseeable, Defendant successfully negated the element of breach of duty.