Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog

October 12, 2017

Discoverable Material and Privilege in Indiana Personal Injury Cases

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Before any Indiana personal injury case reaches trial, the parties must go through the pre-trial discovery stage. During the discovery phase of a personal injury lawsuit, the parties are required to exchange relevant evidence, including documents, witness names, and other information, that is requested by the opposing party.

Some relevant evidence that is otherwise discoverable, however, is exempt from the rules of discovery if it is covered by one or more privileges. A privilege attaches to a certain class of evidence and is usually based on some public policy concern. For example, the attorney-client privilege protects correspondence between an attorney and his client, based on the idea that a client should trust that he can be honest with his attorney without risking the attorney disclosing the substance of the conversation.

A recent appellate court opinion in a nursing home negligence case upheld the nursing home’s asserted privilege that was based on a state statute.

The Facts of the Case

October 4, 2017

Court Resolves Statute of Limitations Argument in Favor of Defendant in Recent Premises Liability Lawsuit

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

All Indiana personal injury cases must be filed within a certain amount of time, or the case will be dismissed and the plaintiff will be without any means of recourse. In Indiana, the statute of limitations for most personal injury cases is two years from the date of the injury. However, this time period can be extended in certain situations.

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a premises liability lawsuit raising the question of which of two potentially applicable statutes of limitations applied to the plaintiff’s case. The case goes to show the lengths to which defendants will go to get a case dismissed when there is a potential statute of limitations defense.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiffs were the parents of a young boy who was injured after a wall collapsed on him while he was living at a home owned by the defendant and rented to the boy’s parents. After their son’s injury, the plaintiffs filed a personal injury case against the defendant. However, while that case was pending, the plaintiffs’ son turned 18. At that point, the plaintiffs agreed to withdraw their case against the defendant so that their son could proceed on his own behalf.

September 26, 2017

Government Organization Potentially Evades Responsibility in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Due to Parties’ Procedural Missteps

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When someone intends on filing an Indiana wrongful death lawsuit, a thorough investigation must be conducted to determine all of the proper parties that should be named in the lawsuit. In situations in which a government entity is discovered to be one of the potential defendants, Indiana law requires that certain additional steps be taken when naming that entity as a defendant.

Under the Indiana Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees Act, plaintiffs intending on filing lawsuits filed against government entities must first provide notice of the claim to the government entity. This notice is due either 180 or 270 days after the incident. If a party fails to provide the government entity with notice of the claim and proceeds to file the claim, the court will dismiss the plaintiff’s case.

A recent wrongful death case illustrates the importance of conducting a thorough investigation.

September 18, 2017

Court Upholds Jury’s Fault Determination in Favor of Plaintiff in Recent Product Liability Case Brought Against Vehicle Manufacturer

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion that will likely be of interest to anyone considering an Indiana product liability lawsuit against a vehicle manufacturer. The case presented the court with the opportunity to answer two questions. First, it addressed whether the lower court was proper in dismissing the plaintiff’s case against the defendant vehicle manufacturer based on a perceived inconsistency in the jury’s verdict. And second, it addressed the issue of, if the plaintiff’s case was sufficient as a matter of law, whether the $1 million damages that the jury awarded him were adequate. Ultimately, the court resolved both questions in favor of the plaintiff.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was injured in a roll-over accident when the van he was operating rear-ended another vehicle on the highway. While the initial collision was minor, the plaintiff was seriously injured when the van rolled, and he hit his head on the roof of the vehicle. After the accident, the plaintiff was permanently paralyzed from the neck down.

The plaintiff filed a product liability lawsuit against the vehicle’s manufacturer, making several claims. The plaintiff presented evidence showing that the manufacturer did not conduct any safety testing on the seatbelt mechanism in the van. The plaintiff also had an expert witness testify that, had testing been conducted, the results would have indicated that the seatbelt mechanism was unsafe, and the manufacturer would have likely used a safer mechanism in its place.

September 12, 2017

Indiana Personal Injury Lawsuits Against Government Entities

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

As a general rule, government entities cannot be held liable for Indiana accidents under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The concept of sovereign immunity has been around since the formation of our country. Essentially, sovereign immunity provides total immunity to government entities and employees for their negligent acts. However, over the years, states have enacted various laws that create exceptions to this general rule, permitting some lawsuits against the government.

Indiana’s version of this law is called the “Tort Claims Against Governmental Entities and Public Employees Act.” Under the Act, sovereign immunity is waived in some situations in which a government employee’s or entity’s negligent action caused someone’s injuries. However, the Act specifically excludes certain types of lawsuits, including accidents involving discretionary acts, the condition of unpaved roads and trails, and most weather-related accidents.

That being said, the Act permits lawsuits against the government for some common accidents, including car accidents caused by government employees and slip-and-fall accidents occurring on government property. Even when sovereign immunity is waived under the Act, however, the accident victim must comply with a strict set of rules in order for their case to be heard and considered. A recent case illustrates the difficulties one accident victim had when he failed to comply with the notice requirements under a similar act.

September 6, 2017

Plaintiff’s Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Raise Issue at Trial

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Once a judge or a jury renders a verdict in an Indiana personal injury case, that verdict is final unless one of the parties involved decides to file an appeal to a higher court. Importantly, Indiana appellate courts will not revisit factual determinations of a judge or jury. This means that issues of credibility are not appealable. However, legal claims of error, such as evidentiary issues, can be appealed if the issue is properly raised and preserved below.

Indiana appellate courts receive thousands of appeals each year, and they employ a strict set of procedural rules to ensure that only the most diligent parties with meritorious claims of error are heard. One of the most commonly encountered rules of appellate procedure is the requirement that a claim of error must be raised at trial in order for an appellate court to consider the alleged error on appeal.

Due to this rule, a party’s failure to raise and preserve an issue at trial will almost certainly prevent that party from bringing the issue to the attention of an appellate court. A recent personal injury case involving a serious slip-and-fall accident illustrates how this rule affected one plaintiff’s ability to recover compensation for his injuries.

August 29, 2017

Causation in Indiana Medical Malpractice Cases

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

One of the most contested aspects in many Indiana medical malpractice cases is the element of causation. Simply stated, in order to succeed in a medical malpractice case, a plaintiff must not only show that the defendant medical provider was negligent but also show that their negligence was the cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. While this may seem simple in concept, the reality is that causation in medical malpractice cases is very complex. A recent medical malpractice opinion issued by a federal court of appeals illustrates one plaintiff’s difficulty in establishing causation.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the surviving spouse of a man who died from liver cancer. The plaintiff’s husband suffered from numerous medical conditions, including cirrhosis, and was treated by the local Veterans Administration (VA) hospital.

In 2011, the plaintiff’s husband showed signs of elevated liver function and had a CT scan performed. The VA doctor interpreting the scan results noted that the patient’s cirrhosis was stable but failed to make any other observations or diagnosis.

August 21, 2017

Workplace Personal Injury Lawsuit Dismissed Based on Plaintiff’s Knowledge of Potential Dangers

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Last month, a state court in Georgia issued a written opinion in a workplace accident that is of interest to those considering bringing an Indiana personal injury lawsuit, especially for incidents that occurred in the workplace. The case presented the court with the opportunity to decide if a company should be liable for injuries to an independent contractor that occurred when the independent contractor stepped in a puddle of hazardous chemicals. Ultimately, the court determined that the contractor was fully warned about the risks involved with working at the facility and that the company successfully discharged its duty to the contractor.

Workplace Injuries and Workers’ Compensation Claims

As a preliminary matter, it is important to understand the difference between personal injury cases occurring at a job site and workers’ compensation claims. Workers’ compensation claims are technically brought against an employer, and, when appropriate, they often are the sole remedy available to the injured employee. However, when an employee’s injury is due to the negligence of a third party, the employee may have an additional claim for compensation through an Indiana personal injury lawsuit against that third party.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was employed by an independent contractor that performed insulation work. The defendant employed the company for which the plaintiff worked to perform insulation work on chemical tanks. The defendant company required the independent contractors to complete specialized safety training prior to beginning work.

August 14, 2017

Bars and Restaurants that Over-Serve Customers May Be Liable in Indiana Drunk Driving Lawsuits

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Indiana is among the several states that has a Dram Shop liability statute, which can act to impose civil liability on establishments that serve alcohol to patrons who later leave the establishment and cause a serious accident. Most commonly, Dram Shop cases involve a patron who leaves the establishment and causes an Indiana drunk driving accident; however, the Dram Shop statute is not limited to drunk driving accidents.

Under the Indiana Dram Shop statute, an establishment may be held liable for any injury caused by a patron who was served by the establishment. In order to establish liability, the injured party must prove that the establishment knew the patron was intoxicated when they were served, and also the patron’s intoxication was a proximate cause of the accident. A recent case out of Florida illustrates how courts apply Dram Shop statutes to impose liability on establishments that over-serve alcohol.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the surviving husband of a woman who was killed in a drunk driving accident. The driver who caused the accident had just left a golf course, where he played a round while consuming several alcoholic drinks.

August 8, 2017

How Indiana’s Dram Shop Law Can Help Victims of Drunk Driving Accidents

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Most people are aware that when a drunk driver causes an Indiana car accident, that driver can be held responsible for any injuries that occur as a result of the accident through an Indiana personal injury lawsuit. What may come as a surprise to some readers is that, under Indiana’s Dram Shop law, if the drunk driver was served by a bar or restaurant to the point of intoxication, that establishment may also be named as a defendant in the drunk driving lawsuit.

Dram Shop laws are present in some form in most states. Essentially, Dram Shop laws allow for victims of a drunk driving accident to hold an establishment that over-served a drunk driver financially responsible for their injuries. In Indiana, an establishment may be liable if the person who served the driver had actual knowledge that the driver was intoxicated. It also must be shown that the driver’s intoxication was the proximate cause of the accident victim’s injuries. When it comes to proving actual knowledge that a driver was intoxicated, courts will look at all of the surrounding circumstances, such as the number of drinks the driver was served, the manner in which the driver was acting, and any eyewitness accounts of the interactions between the driver and employees of the establishment. A recent case out of Florida illustrates how one court applied the state’s Dram Shop law.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff was the surviving loved one of a man who was killed in a drunk driving accident involving another driver. The at-fault driver had just come from the defendant golf course, where he played a round of golf while enjoying several alcoholic drinks. The plaintiff filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the golf course.