Justia Injury Law Opinion Summaries

In this insurance dispute, the Supreme Court held that the MCS-90 endorsement, which provides that if a motor vehicle is involved in an accident the insurer may be required to pay any final judgment against the insured arising out of the accident, does not apply to an accident that occurred during an intrastate trip transporting non-hazardous property.One way motor carries can comply with the financial requirements of the federal Motor Carrier Act of 1980 is by adding an MCS-90 endorsement to their insurance policy. The insurer in this case brought an action seeking a declaration that the MCS-90 endorsement creating a suretyship whereby the insurer agreed to pay a final judgment against the insured in certain negligence cases did not apply. The trial court found that the MCS-90 endorsement applied, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the insured driver was neither engaged in interests commerce at the time of the action nor transporting hazardous property, the MCS-90 endorsement did not apply; and (2) the insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify the driver. View "Progressive Southeastern Insurance Co. v. Brown" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant in this case brought by K.G.'s parent, who alleged that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the sexual abuse of K.G., holding that a narrow expansion of the common law was required to do justice in this case.K.G., who was disabled, attended a school where she received instructional and special needs services. One of the school's instructional assistants sexually abused K.G. while changing her diaper. Plaintiff brought this action against the school, alleging that she suffered emotional distress as a result of K.G.'s sexual abuse. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's failure to satisfy either the modified-impact rule or the bystander rule precluded her from recovering for emotional distress. The Supreme Court reversed, (1) the common-law rules governing claims for the negligent infliction of emotional distress reflect a jurisprudence of incremental change; (2) in some cases of child sexual abuse, a parent or guardian need not show proximity to the tortious act to raise an emotional distress claim; and (3) because Plaintiff satisfied the elements of this new rule, summary judgment was improper. View "K.G. v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court granting summary judgment for the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District and dismissing Clarence Lowe's tort claim, holding that the District is a political subdivision under the Indiana Tort Claims Act and that Lowe's notice was untimely.Lowe claimed he was injured while working for the District and brought this action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA). Lowe sent a note of tort claim to the Indiana attorney general, who received the notice 263 days after Lowe's injury. The District argued that, for purposes of the Act, it was a political subdivision rather than a state agency and that because Lowe failed to serve it with a notice within 180 days after his injury, the Act barred his claim. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment against Lowe. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District was a political subdivision under the Act and that Lowe's arguments neither factually nor legally excused his failure to provide timely notice. View "Lowe v. Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment in favor of the government and dismissing Plaintiff's claim that the negligence of the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) in designing and maintaining a highway caused his injuries, holding that the government was immune from liability.Plaintiff was traveling on a highway when he struck a pool of water, lost control of his vehicle, and struck a tree. Plaintiff and his wife sued INDOT, alleging negligence. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of INDOT. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because the evidence showed that the weather-induced condition continued to worsen at the time of the accident and because Plaintiffs failed to raise a reasonable inference to the contrary, the condition was temporary, and therefore, the government was immune from liability. View "Staat v. Indiana Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that when the government knows of an existing defect in a public thoroughfare and when it has ample opportunity to respond, immunity does not apply under the Indiana Tort Claims Act simply because the defect manifests during recurring inclement weather.Plaintiff was injured in an accident caused by flooding on a highway. Plaintiff sued the State and the Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) for negligence, alleging that INDOT's failure to post warnings of the flooded roadway and its failure to maintain proper damage resulted in her injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for INDOT based on immunity. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because the evidence showed the INDOT had known of the defect causing the highway to flood and had ample opportunity to remedy the defect but failed in its duty, summary judgment was appropriate. View "Ladra v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment for a shipper and its agent and against a commercial truck driver who sustained injuries when his cargo fell on him, holding that this Court expressly adopts the Fourth Circuit's "Savage rule."At issue was whether Defendant was negligent in packing, loading, and failing to secure the trailer's cargo. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant at issue on appeal. The Supreme Court adopted the Savage rule, which holds that carriers have the primary duty for loading and securing cargo, and if the shipper assumes a legal duty of safe loading it becomes liable for injuries resulting from any latent defect. The Court then affirmed, holding (1) given both the rule's sound policy and its consistency with Indiana law, this Court formally adopts the Savage rule; and (2) Defendant was not liable for Plaintiff's injuries under the circumstances of this case. View "Wilkes v. Celadon Group, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Defendant in this personal injury case, holding that the trial court did not err.Plaintiffs were shopping for a sink in Menard, Inc. when a box containing a sink came apart and the sink fell on one of the plaintiffs, causing him injuries. Plaintiffs sued Defendant for damages, alleging premises liability and a loss of consortium. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs did not meet their burden on their premises liability claim; and (2) Plaintiffs' res ipsa loquitur claim failed. View "Griffin v. Menard Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment on Plaintiff's negligence claim based on a determination that no duty was owed in this case, holding that there was no error.Plaintiff's husband suffered catastrophic injuries when the motorcycle he was operating was hit by a car in an intersection. Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, alleging negligence for allowing the property it owed to grow grass so high that it blocked the view of the roadway. The trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant did not owe a duty to nearby motorists. View "Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed in part the judgment of the trial court awarding Plaintiff $132,000 in damages in connection with her negligence complaint, holding that the trial court erred in failing to apply the eggshell-skull rule.Plaintiff sued Defendant for negligence, and the trial court granted a default judgment. Plaintiff requested over $600,000 in damages. The trial court ultimately awarded her $132,000 in damages, noting Plaintiff's failure to mitigate her damages and failure to show that the accident in this case caused all of her damages. The Supreme Court held that the trial court abused its discretion in calculating damages, holding (1) the trial court properly reduced its award due to Plaintiff's failure to mitigate her damages; (2) the trial court did not err in determining that Plaintiff failed to prove Defendant's negligence proximately caused all her damages; but (3) the trial court erred in failing to apply the eggshell-skull rule. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for the trial court to recalculate its award of damages. View "Renner v. Shepard-Bazant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court answered in the negative a certified question as to whether a store manager can be held liable for negligence when he is not directly involved in the accident at issue.In the underlying personal injury case Plaintiff sued Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart's store manager, Jim Clark, seeking damages. Plaintiff sued in state court, but Defendants sought to remove the case to federal court and the grounds that Clark, an Indiana citizen, was added solely to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs sought to remand the matter back to state court, alleging that there were issues of fact precluding a conclusion that Clark, who played on personal or direct role in the alleged injury, was fraudulently joined. The United States District Court sua sponte entered an order seeking guidance in resolving the issue of whether Clark could be liable as a defendant. The Supreme Court answered by holding that when there are no allegations that a store manager controlled the premises where the harm occurred, he cannot be held liable under Indiana law. View "Branscomb v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P." on Justia Law