Source: http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog?category=Negligence
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:44:54+00:00

Document:
This week we look at the remarkable decision in Hamilton v. Steak'n Shake Operations Inc., which took a deep dive into the analyses of Goodwin v. Yeakle's Sports Bar & Grill and Rogers v. Martin to conclude that a restaurant proprietor owes a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect a "restaurant patron who has been subjected to escalating threats and taunts" from "injury resulting after the encounter culminated in physical violence."
This week we discuss Walters v. JS Aviation, Inc., which reversed summary judgment against a woman who was injured when she missed a step down at an aircraft hangar that may not have been properly marked.
This week's discussion revisits the question of whether a sport participant's actions outside the scope of a drill are judged by the risks of the sport as a whole or through the lens of the drill.
This week we discuss the recent Court of Appeals of Indiana case Hudgins v. Bemish as a catalyst to discuss when an employer may be held liable for an employee using a work truck to drive home. We also look at the doctrines of negligent hiring and negligent entrustment.
This week, we look at the recent Indiana Supreme Court decision Patchett v. Lee and how it, along with Stanley v. Walker, has monumentally shaped the landscape of Indiana personal injury law.
This week the Indiana Court of Appeals shifted gears, abandoning 40 years of caselaw in order to revitalize a 1907 decision from the Indiana Supreme Court allowing plaintiffs to simultaneously pursue claims for negligent hiring and vicarious liability.
Today we look at the scenarios in which a claim can proceed despite not timely filing a notice of tort claim under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. We also look at the formerly puzzling question of the proper standard of review where a plaintiff's claim is tossed at summary judgment for failure to file an ITCA notice.
Can Indiana Department of Child Services Be Liable for Disclosing Confidential Identification Information?
This week we examine whether a statute that makes the identity of persons reporting child abuse confidential can be used to hold the department of child services liable where it inadvertently discloses that information. We also examine whether there might be other ways to hold the DCS liable.
This week, we take a look at a new case from the Indiana Court of Appeals that looks at what circumstances a county can be held liable for an accident at a dangerous two-way stop intersection.
This week we look at whether the violation of a statute designed to protect a pedestrian by requiring him to walk against the flow of traffic can constitute contributory negligence at summary judgment when the alternative would have been to cross a busy road without a crosswalk.
This installment focuses on the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Lyons v. Richmond Community School Corporation that examined the application of fraudulent concealment and the discovery rule to the Indiana Tort Claims Act and found that the parents of a severely disabled student who was allowed to choke to death on food at her school could have their day in court.
This week's discussion looks at a case addressing a novel argument under the Indiana General Wrongful Death Statute that argued attorney fees are only available to decedents without dependents. The Court of Appeals found the statute ambiguous and, applying doctrines of interpretation, held that attorney fees are available to both decedents with and without dependents. Perhaps of greater import, the case looked to whether a contingency fee agreement between plaintiff and its counsel provides the fees to be assessed or whether a reasonable-hourly rate was to be applied. Somewhat surprisingly, the court found the contingency fee agreement to control. The full application of this decision seems certain to be the basis for a great many arguments in the future.
This week's discussion looks to a case following from a shooting at a school in Martinsville, Indiana and explores the ability of a public school to utilize discretionary function immunity under Indiana Tort Claim's Act as well as the duty of a school to protect its students' safety.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.