Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog

January 14, 2019

Indiana Car Accidents Occurring in Parking Lots and on Other Private Property

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When someone is injured in an Indiana car accident, the accident victim is entitled to pursue a claim for compensation against any of the parties they believe were responsible for causing the crash. In the majority of cases, car accidents occur on public roads. After an accident on a public road, the motorists involved in the collision should call the police. The police will then respond to the scene, investigate the accident, and issue any citations if they are determined to be necessary. The results of an investigation conducted by the police can be very beneficial to an Indiana car accident plaintiff.

In addition to accidents occurring on public roadways, there are a significant number of Indiana car accidents that occur in parking lots, parking garages, or on other privately owned property. Because these accidents are not on public roadways, police officers may not respond unless there are serious injuries. However, it is essential that motorists involved in a car accident on private property obtain all the necessary information from the other drivers involved in the crash, including the driver’s name, address, insurance information, as well as the vehicle information, including the name and address of the owner (if the owner is not the one driving the car).

An accident victim may also be able to pursue a claim against the owner of the property where the accident occurred if the owner’s negligence contributed to the accident. For example, parking garages are poorly designed or improperly marked, creating a misleading situation for motorists. However, an Indiana accident victim must be able to connect the landowner’s negligence to their injuries by establishing a causal relationship between the two. A recent state appellate decision discussed a plaintiff’s car accident claim against a private residential community.

January 10, 2019

Indiana Schools Have a Duty to Protect Students from Injury While at School

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case involving a parent’s allegations against her daughter’s school. While the case arose in another jurisdiction, it raises important issues under Indiana personal injury law. Specifically, the duty that a school owes to its students.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff’s daughter sustained a serious cut to her thumb in woodshop class. Evidently, the student was trying to free a jammed piece of wood from a table saw when the student’s hand came into contact with the saw’s blade. At the time, the shop teacher was out of the shop supervising other students.

The shop teacher testified that before a student was permitted to use the machine unsupervised, they had to pass a written test. Additionally, the teacher would observe students using the machine until he felt comfortable they could do so safely. He estimated that he observed the plaintiff use the table saw correctly 60 times.

December 28, 2018

The Requirements of an Indiana Medical Malpractice Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Filing a successful Indiana medical malpractice lawsuit can be a complicated endeavor. Not only do these claims often require several expert witnesses to explain the relevant issues in the case to the jury, but there are also additional procedural requirements that a plaintiff must follow.

Under Indiana Code Article 18 Chapter 8, a person bringing a medical malpractice lawsuit against a healthcare professional must first submit their claim to a medical review panel and obtain the panel’s opinion. If a plaintiff fails to comply with this requirement, or any of the other requirements outlined in Chapter 8, the court will dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint. Depending on the timing of the plaintiff’s case, this could preclude the plaintiff from recovering for their injuries.

A recent case arising in another jurisdiction illustrates that not all claims against healthcare providers will be considered “medical malpractice” cases. Typically, these are cases that are brought against medical professionals but do not implicate a professional duty of care. For example, a slip-and-fall accident in a doctor’s office may not be considered a medical malpractice claim.

December 18, 2018

Can an Indiana Ski Resort Be Held Liable for Injuries Occurring on the Mountain?

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Winter is officially here, and along with the season comes the ability to participate in some of the most fun and exciting sports – skiing and snowboarding. Part of the reason why these sports are so thrilling is also what makes them so dangerous. High speeds, steep hills, moguls, tight turns, and trees all contribute to the overall experience of skiing, but also to the risks involved. The question often comes up, can a resort be held liable for an Indiana ski accident?

In theory, a ski resort can be held liable for injuries that occur while a guest is skiing. However, almost all ski resorts have taken precaution to ensure that they will not be held responsible for injuries that are caused due to the inherent risks of the sport. Determining what constitutes an “inherent risk” is subject to interpretation and is typically a job left to the courts. Notwithstanding the potential hurdles involved, anyone injured in an Indiana ski accident should reach out to a dedicated Indiana personal injury lawyer to discuss their situation.

A recent case illustrates the difficulties one plaintiff had attempting to bring a claim against a ski resort after an accident with a snowcat. Although it did not take place in this state, it may be illustrative of how an Indiana court would approach the topic.

December 11, 2018

Plaintiff Injured in Slip-and-Fall Accident at Doctor’s Office Failed to Show Defendant’s Knowledge of the Hazard that Caused Her Fall

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing a defense that is commonly raised in response to an Indiana premises liability case. The case involved a defendant’s allegations that it was unaware of the hazard that caused the plaintiff’s fall and, thus, could not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Indiana Premises Liability Law

In Indiana, landowners owe a duty of care to those whom they invite onto their property. The extent of that duty depends largely on the reason for the plaintiff’s visit. Customers or others who are present on a defendant’s property for business purposes are owed the highest duty. In these cases, the landowner must fix any dangerous condition on their property or warn the visitor about hazards that may not be obvious. However, if the landowner is unaware of the hazard, they may not have a duty at all.

Case Facts

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was a patient at a doctor’s office. As the plaintiff walked by a desk, she felt something catch the leg of her pant. The plaintiff fell to the ground, resulting in serious injury. After the fall, as the plaintiff was prone on the ground, she noticed that a wheelchair was leaning up against the desk just a few feet from where she was.

December 4, 2018

Court Upholds Defendant’s Fifth Amendment Privilege Not to Testify in Recent Personal Injury Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Recently, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case discussing an interesting issue that all Indiana personal injury victims would be wise to consider before filing a case against a defendant. The case addressed when a personal injury defendant may be able to evoke their privilege against self-incrimination when asked to testify in a personal injury lawsuit.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiffs were the surviving loved ones of two pedestrians who were killed in an accident caused by the defendant. Because the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the crash, he was arrested and charged with several serious charges, including two counts of murder.

Evidently, the defendant ultimately pled guilty to the murder charges and was sentenced to a total term of 32 years in jail. The defendant filed an appeal of his sentence, claiming that it was excessive. The plaintiffs filed a civil wrongful death lawsuit around this same time, and submitted a discovery request to the court, seeking the defendant be deposed.

November 29, 2018

Indiana Court Holds Plaintiff’s Misuse of Tool Defeated Product Liability Claim

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Earlier in November, a written opinion was issued about an Indiana product liability case discussing whether a plaintiff’s incorrect use of the product is a complete defense for the manufacturer. The court held that a plaintiff’s misuse of a product can be a total defense if it is proven by the manufacturer.

The Factual Scenario

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff purchased a rotary tool powered by air that was manufactured by the defendant. The tool included an instruction manual, outlining the proper use of the tool. Among other matters, the tool’s directions informed users to always wear safety glasses when using the tool; not to only use the cut-off wheel attachment if the safety guard is secured into place; and, only use attachments that are rated for a minimum of 25,000 RPM (revs per minute). The tool did not come with the referenced safety guard and the instruction manual did not inform users where they could obtain one.

Evidently, the plaintiff was helping a friend with a project that required the use of the cut-off attachment. While doing so, the plaintiff wore eyeglasses, which he believed would be adequate protection. In addition, the tool did not have a safety guard installed and the cut-off wheel attachment he was using was rated for only 19,000 RPM. The cut-off wheel attachment subsequently broke and struck the plaintiff in the face, causing serious injuries including the loss of his eye.

November 20, 2018

Court Discusses Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine in Recent Premises Liability Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a personal injury case discussing the res ipsa loquitor doctrine. Res Ipsa Loquitor is a legal doctrine that applies in some Indiana personal injury cases and allows the fact-finder to make an inference that the defendant was negligent although there is no direct evidence of the defendant’s negligence.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was exiting an elevator when the elevator’s doors inexplicably closed on her. The plaintiff suffered injuries as a result and filed a personal injury lawsuit against the condo association where the elevator was located. The plaintiff’s claim was brought under the theory of res ipsa loquitor.

Both the plaintiff and defendant presented expert witness testimony supporting their respective side. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s case, arguing that the res ipsa loquitor doctrine did not apply.

November 13, 2018

Respondeat Superior: Holding an Employer Liable for the Negligent Acts of an Employee

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

One of the most important decisions that an Indiana car accident plaintiff must make is which parties to name as defendants. This decision is so important because it can have a significant effect on whether the plaintiff will be able to recover for their injuries and, if so, how much they will be able to recover. One reason for this is because most individuals do not have the necessary assets to cover the costs associated with a serious Indiana car accident. Indeed, even after insurance policies are considered, many Indiana accident victims find themselves with medical expenses that are far greater than the amount they can recover from the at-fault driver.

Any experienced Indiana personal injury attorney will explain that the best way to ensure full and fair compensation for an accident victim’s injuries is to name all potentially liable parties. This may include the owner of a vehicle that the at-fault driver was using or, more commonly, an employer.

In many Indiana car accidents, the employer of an at-fault driver can also be named as a defendant under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior. The term respondeat superior is Latin for “let the master answer,” and stands for the principle that an employer can be held liable for an employee’s negligent actions, so long as the employee was acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the alleged negligent action. Thus, the doctrine is particularly important in Indiana truck accident cases.

November 6, 2018

Federal Appellate Court Dismissed DUI Accident Victim’s Case Against Concert Organizers

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Recently, a federal appellate court issued a written opinion in a personal injury case illustrating an important concept that frequently arises in Indiana car accident cases. The case presented the court with the opportunity to discuss whether the plaintiff’s wrongful death case could survive the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Specifically, the issue presented to the court was whether the defendants controlled the area where the accident occurred.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was killed in a DUI accident while attending the South by Southwest (SXSW) music festival. The SXSW festival takes place each year in Austin, Texas, and includes numerous venues which are spread across the city. As a result, the concert organizers applied for a special use permit allowing the closure of certain roads during the festival. The area where the accident later occurred was included in the areas that the concert organizers requested be closed.

Evidently, the use permit was granted, and as a condition, the city required that “all traffic controls must be provided in accordance with the approved traffic control plan.” Organizers placed barriers around the closed portion of the street, and a uniformed police officer was placed near the intersection to keep watch.