Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog

July 13, 2016

Appellate Court Denies Insurance Company’s Jurisdictional Challenge to Accident Victim’s Lawsuit

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, the Michigan Supreme Court issued an interesting opinion illuminating the jurisdictional issues that can arise in personal injury cases. In the case, Hodge v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, the plaintiff was a woman who was injured when she was struck by a vehicle insured by State Farm.

After the accident, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in a district court. In Michigan, as in Indiana and many other states, the court system is broken down according to several factors, one of which is the “amount in controversy,” or the amount sought by the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff was seeking $25,000, which was the upper limit of a Michigan district court.

At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of damages far in excess of the $25,000. State Farm attempted to prevent the plaintiff from presenting this evidence, arguing that it wasn’t proper because the limit she could recover was $25,000. The court denied the request and allowed all of the plaintiff’s evidence of injuries. After the trial, she was awarded roughly $85,000, and the court then reduced the recovery amount to the jurisdictional limit of $25,000.

July 6, 2016

Government Immunity Is Not Without Its Limits

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

State, local, and federal governments, as well as related government agencies, enjoy a general blanket of immunity from personal injury lawsuits. This means that in many cases filed against a government agency or employee, the injured party will not be permitted to recover compensation for their injuries because the named defendant is immune from liability.

However, government liability does have its limits. Importantly, immunity will only attach when the alleged act of negligence is a discretionary one. This means that if the government had a choice in how to conduct the actions in which it is alleged to have been negligent, immunity will attach. Ministerial acts, however, are not covered under the blanket protection of immunity, and governments may be held liable when an allegedly negligent action or inaction was mandated by some law, rule, or regulation. This is exactly what happened in a recent case in front of the Mississippi Supreme Court.

Mississippi Transportation Commission v. Adams: The Facts

Adams was riding his motorcycle on a Mississippi highway that was maintained by the Mississippi Transportation Commission. As he was riding along, Adams accidentally entered into a construction zone. As he attempted to exit the zone safely, he struck an uneven part of the pavement and lost control, falling off the motorcycle. Tragically, two passing cars struck him in the wake of his fall, and he was pronounced dead at the scene.

June 27, 2016

Man Injured by Faulty Handrail Denied Compensation Based on Incomplete Negligence Claim

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a West Virginia court issued a written opinion in a premises liability case brought by a man who suffered a shoulder injury when he fell after leaning on what turned out to be a damaged handrail. The court in the case of Wheeling Park Commission v. Dattoli determined that the injured man’s case against the park was incomplete in that the man failed to submit any evidence regarding the duty the park had to maintain the handrail.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his wife were visiting the park to attend a concert. Since there was no seating available when they arrived, they ended up standing near a fence that protected visitors from inadvertently falling down a nearby hill. The plaintiff, looking for a place to lean, quickly visually inspected a handrail on the fence and then placed his weight against it. As he did so, the rail snapped at both ends, causing the plaintiff to fall down the hill. As a result of the fall, the man suffered a rotator cuff injury requiring surgery and months of physical therapy.

The plaintiff and his wife filed a premises liability lawsuit against the park, arguing that the park’s management was negligent for failing to keep the park safe. Specifically, they argued that it was negligent to allow the handrail to decay to such an extent that the weight of a single person leaning up against it could cause the rail to break.

June 20, 2016

“Assumption of the Risk Doctrine” Prevents Wrongful Death Case from Proceeding

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in California issued a written opinion holding that a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the father of a young man killed while skateboarding was properly dismissed below because the young boy assumed the risk of the dangerous activity in which he was engaging when he suffered his fatal injury. In the case, Bertsch v. Mammoth Community Water District, the court’s decision will prevent the boy’s father from receiving compensation for the loss of his son.

The Facts of the Case

The plaintiff and his two sons were staying at a friend’s condo in Mammoth County, California. The two boys were skateboarding around the neighborhood before meeting up with their father to go rock climbing. Along the way, the boys pushed their way up a hill so that they could enjoy the long and fast ride down. However, on the way down the hill, one of the boys’ boards hit a lip surrounding a manhole cover, and he was thrown from the board. He was not wearing a helmet. When he struck the ground, he hit his head, causing him to suffer a traumatic brain injury. He later died from the injuries he sustained.

The boys’ father filed a lawsuit against several parties, including the local government and the water company that installed the manhole cover, seeking compensation for the loss of his son. The father claimed that the manhole cover was dangerous and that it was negligent for the government to fail to fix the hazard.

June 13, 2016

Bar Found Not Liable for Negligence after Customer Leaves and Strikes Another Patron with Vehicle

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, the Nebraska Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Pittman v. Rivera, holding that a bar owner was not liable under a theory of negligence when one of the bar’s patrons struck another customer after being kicked out for being aggressive. The court based its decision on a lack of foreseeability at the time the bar’s management kicked out the at-fault patron.

Pittman v. Rivera

Pittman was struck by Rivera’s vehicle after Rivera was kicked out of the defendant’s bar for being aggressive toward his girlfriend, an employee at the bar. Initially, Rivera left the bar without incident, but then he returned a few hours later and tried to get back into the bar. The bar’s bouncer didn’t allow Rivera back in, and Rivera got back into his car.

Rivera, upset that he was not allowed back in the bar, began driving his car in a fast and reckless manner around the bar, making U-turns and revving his engine loudly. While Rivera was engaging in this reckless behavior, Pittman was outside the bar talking with friends. Unfortunately, Pittman was struck by Rivera’s vehicle and suffered serious injuries as a result. Pittman then filed a negligence lawsuit against Rivera as well as the owners of the bar.

June 3, 2016

Girl Struck by Car While Boarding School Bus Seeks Recovery from Bus Driver’s Insurance Company

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Delaware issued an opinion in a personal injury case brought by the family of a young girl who was struck by a car while she was about to board her school bus. The case presented the court with an interesting question: whether the school bus’ insurance company could be responsible for the girl’s injuries when the bus driver was not at all involved in the physical collision, but he told the girl to board the bus moments before she was struck.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Buckley

The plaintiff was a young girl who was waiting at the bus stop on her way to school. The bus arrived, and the driver signaled for the girl to board the bus. However, as she was about to board, another car – the driver of which is not named in this lawsuit – struck the girl, causing her serious injuries. This case involves the claim made by the girl against the company that insured the school bus.

The defendant claimed that the insurance policy should not be triggered because there was no accident involving the school bus. On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that the young student was merely following the school bus driver’s instructions when she boarded, and this fits within the definition of an accident under state law.

May 23, 2016

Medical Malpractice Case Survives Summary Judgment Based on Defendants’ Contradictory Evidence

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Medical malpractice and personal injury lawsuits go through several phases before the case is submitted to a jury at trial. Two of the most important pre-trial phases are the discovery phase and the summary judgment stage. The discovery phase is where the parties exchange relevant information to the case that the opposing party may not have or know to exist. Certain discovery, even of unfavorable information, is mandatory.

The summary judgment stage is where either party can ask the court to enter judgment on a case before the case is submitted to a jury. In order for a judge to determine whether summary judgment is appropriate, she looks at all the evidence and determines if either party is legally entitled to judgment in their favor. This is only the case when there are no “issues of material fact,” meaning that there are no legal issues that can be resolved in favor of the non-moving party that could result in that party’s victory.

Defendant’s Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Case Reversed on Appeal

In a recent case in front of the Indiana Supreme Court, the court corrected a lower court’s error in granting summary judgment to a defendant when it was not legally appropriate. In the case, Siner v. Kindred Hospital Limited Partnership, the plaintiffs were the surviving family members of a women who died a short time after being treated at the defendant hospital. The plaintiffs filed a medical malpractice lawsuit, claiming that the poor treatment at the defendant’s hospital resulted in the death of their loved one.

May 18, 2016

Plaintiff’s Premises Liability Claim Denied for Failing to Meet Filing Deadline

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

A state appellate court in Maine recently handed down a decision that demonstrates the importance of meeting deadlines and other procedural requirements when making a personal injury or wrongful death claim, especially when the claim is against a state or municipality. The plaintiff in the case of Deschenes v. The City of Sanford was a man who claims that he was injured when he fell down a dangerous staircase at the Sanford City Hall. After his accident, the plaintiff filed a premises liability lawsuit against the city, seeking damages for his injuries. Although the plaintiff gave oral notice to the city regarding his fall and his request for compensation, he did not provide formal written notice of his claim until after the six-month deadline in Maine for providing such notice.

The City of Sanford Succeeds in Disposing of the Case

At the district court, the City of Sanford argued that the plaintiff did not properly follow the procedures to sue a government entity in the state of Maine, and that the claim must be dismissed. Specifically, the city argued that Maine’s sovereign immunity act required that cities and towns be notified of negligence claims against them within 180 days of an accident.

Although the plaintiff notified the city in person shortly after the accident, both the district court and the state supreme court ruled that such notice was not sufficient under the statute, and that the plaintiff’s claim must be dismissed. Based on the Maine Supreme Court’s ruling that affirmed the lower court order, the plaintiff will be unable to recover any damages as a result of the city’s alleged negligence that caused his injuries.

May 11, 2016

Dram Shop Laws in Indiana – How Bars Can Be Held Responsible for Over Serving Customers

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Drunk driving is one of the leading causes of fatal traffic accidents in Indiana. In fact, so far this year there have been over 5,500 alcohol-related car accidents in Indiana alone. Of those, roughly 2,300 have resulted in injury, and 205 have resulted in death. These figures represent about one-third of all traffic accidents in the entire state.

With drunk driving being such a problem in Indiana, the Indiana Legislature took action and passed a Dram Shop Act. Indiana’s Dram Shop Act serves to hold an establishment financially liable when they serve a patron to the point of intoxication, and then that patron causes a car accident. Dram Shop Act cases are most commonly brought against bars but can also be brought against restaurants and even social hosts who provide alcohol to someone who was already visibly intoxicated.

A Recent Example of a Dram Shop Act Case

In Massachusetts, an appellate court recently heard an appeal from a defendant restaurant owner after it was determined by the lower court that the case could proceed to trial. In Bayless v. TTS Trio Corporation, the plaintiff was a woman who lost her father in a single-vehicle car accident after he left the defendant’s restaurant.

May 2, 2016

Appellate Court Determines When Evidence of a Party’s Lack of Insurance is Admissible at Trial

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, an appellate court in Maryland issued a written opinion in a case involving allegations that a cement company was negligent in the hiring of an independent contractor. In the case, Perry v. Asphalt & Concrete Services, Inc., the court ultimately decided that the plaintiff should not have been permitted to submit evidence of the truck driver’s lack of insurance unless the plaintiff was able to show that the lack of insurance was relevant to the negligent hiring claim.

The Facts of the Case

Back in 2009, the plaintiff, Perry, was crossing the street when he was struck by a dump truck. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff suffered broken ribs as well as head trauma. After physically recovering from his injuries, Perry filed a negligence lawsuit against the truck’s driver, the trucking company, and the concrete company that hired the driver. Specific to the later claim, Perry asserted that the concrete company (ACS) negligently hired the driver, and that the company should be responsible for his injuries due to their negligence.

At trial, Perry tried to introduce evidence that the truck driver did not have insurance at the time of the accident. The court allowed the evidence to be considered by the jury, which found in favor of the plaintiff after hearing it. The total verdict amount was $529,500, including $500,000 for pain and suffering. Not satisfied with the court’s rulings on several evidentiary issues, ACS appealed.