Opinion ID: 2057969
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of Evidence of Statutory Violation

Text: Picadilly argues that the trial court erred in refusing to grant its motion for judgment on the evidence because of the lack of sufficient evidence to permit the jury to conclude that Picadilly's employees knowingly served alcohol to an intoxicated person in violation of statute. Colvin argues that a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence must demonstrate inadequate evidence under every theory of liability, not merely one of many, before prejudice is established. We agree. A general verdict will be sustained if the evidence is sufficient to sustain any theory of liability. In re Estate of Fanning (1975), 263 Ind. 414, 417, 333 N.E.2d 80, 82; City of Indianapolis v. Pollard (1960), 241 Ind. 66, 72, 169 N.E.2d 405, 408. Because the statutory violation was not the exclusive basis for liability, and because the sufficiency of evidence upon the alternative general negligence theory is not questioned in this appeal, we find no error on this issue.