Indiana Injury Lawyer Blog

May 22, 2023

Erie Insurance Exchange v. Craighead: Protecting the Purpose of Underinsured Motorist Coverage

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

In a case determined in September 2022, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided an important and common issue for injury victims when dealing with their own insurance in its opinion in Erie Insurance Exchange v. Craighead. Many drivers who are injured as a result of an underinsured motorist turn to their own underinsured motorist coverage and medical payments coverage to help them recover. It is what they paid for and is there to protect them in the event they are injured by an underinsured motorist.

Medical payments coverage is a type of insurance coverage that helps pay for medical bills if injured in an accident. Underinsured motorist coverage provides coverage where an at-fault driver in a crash has liability insurance, but the available coverage to compensate the injured victim is less than the underinsured coverage available under the victim’s underinsured motorist coverage. Because many drivers take the road with the minimum required coverage under the law ($25,000 per person/$50,000 for any one accident), these two coverages are indispensable to protect yourself and your loved ones.

Because many insurance companies attempt to pay the least amount possible, even to their own policyholders, many insurance companies will attempt to set off the payments made from the medical payments coverage and reduce the amount of compensation available to the victim under the underinsured motorist coverage. This is just a small illustration of why it is important to have an experienced personal injury attorney who is willing to fight for injury victims and ensure they receive full and just compensation.

August 26, 2020

Salmonella Outbreak Related to Bagged Peaches May Result in Indiana Product Liability Claims

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Warmer weather also means an increase in the availability of fresh summer fruit. When grocery shopping, many consumers will pick up watermelons, ripe peaches, and fresh berries in celebration of the seasonal harvest. However, no one expects for the produce they bring home to cause them to become seriously ill. When something you purchased at the store causes you to feel sick or causes hospitalization, it is crucial that the store where you purchased the item is informed so the relevant authorities can identify the source of the issue. You may also be eligible for compensation through an Indiana product liability lawsuit.

According to a recent news article, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is investigating bagged peaches as a potential source of a salmonella outbreak. A total of 68 people across nine states have fallen ill, with 14 hospitalized. According to authorities, the peaches were packaged and sold in two-pound, clear plastic bags starting June 1. All peaches that were bagged by the packing company in question have been recalled.

The peaches had been solely supplied by this particular packing company and had been shipped to stores in 16 states including Massachusetts, New York, Kentucky, Iowa, and Minnesota. The FDA is still conducting an investigation in order to gather more information about the source of contamination and how widely the produce was distributed.

August 18, 2020

Indiana Chain-Reaction Car Accident Leaves Two Dead

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When imagining a typical car accident, the first thought may be a collision between two cars. However, crashes often may initially only involve one or two vehicles, but end up resulting in a much larger accident as additional vehicles are unable to avoid crashing into the already-disabled vehicles. These accidents are referred to as chain-reaction crashes, and can pose various challenges when assigning fault and responsibility following a major incident.

In a recent news article, two people were tragically killed in a chain-reaction car accident that shut down roads for nearly eight hours. According to the report, a woman was driving a Nissan Rouge early in the morning when she lost control of her car and crashed into a concrete barrier. Her vehicle traveled back into traffic, colliding with a Chevrolet Equinox. The Nissan then crashed into a semi-truck, and another vehicle hit the Equinox.

Following the accident, the driver of the Nissan and her passenger were ejected from the vehicle and pronounced dead on the scene. Local authorities shut down roads for nearly eight hours in order to conduct their investigation, which resulted in a significant diversion of traffic to a nearby expressway.

August 12, 2020

Navigating the Indiana Dram Shop Statute Following a Drunk Driving Accident

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When an accident occurs involving drunk driving, many people do not know that the party that served the alcohol to the intoxicated person may be held liable for their negligence in serving the intoxicated party. However, there are exceptions. These exceptions typically occur when the chain of events does not show a direct link of causation between the consumption of alcohol and subsequent accident or injury. If there are intervening causes or an event occurs that breaks the chain of causation, the party who furnished the alcohol to the intoxicated party who caused the accident may not be liable.

In a recent court opinion, questions concerning the scope of a liquor licensee’s liability for injuries its patron caused after a night of drinking came under consideration. The day before the accident occurred, a man had worked a twelve-hour shift at his warehouse job. After finishing his shift, he headed to a family wedding reception, where he had some beer. After, he went out with a group of friends to a club owned by the defendant. On the way to the club, the man stopped at a convenience store and purchased a twenty-four-ounce container of beer, which he consumed while driving to the club. After several drinks at the club, the man and his group headed home for the night at around 2am and fell asleep.

At around 5am, the man got up to drive some friends home when he crashed his pickup truck into a car stopped at a red light, killing both of the car’s occupants. He was arrested at the scene and convicted of two counts of manslaughter and sentenced to 14 years in prison. The family members of those killed in the DUI accident filed a lawsuit, asserting dram shop liability against the club.

August 6, 2020

FDA Recall of Hand Sanitizers May Be the Basis for an Indiana Product Liability Claim

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

When the COVID-19 pandemic first hit the United States earlier this year, many Americans flocked to the stores to stock up on hand sanitizers, disinfectant wipes, soaps, and other household cleaning supplies. Major retailers such as Walmart, CVS, and Target were out of these products for weeks due to the increased demand. Many Indiana residents probably found themselves buying these products to prepare for an unknown future with the virus. However, recent recalls have made clear that some of these products may have caused Indiana residents to fall ill, and may be implicated in future Indiana products’ liability suits.

According to a recent article by the Washington Post, federal regulators have recalled dozens of hand sanitizers because they contain dangerous and potentially deadly levels of wood alcohol, also called methanol. Many of these products have been available in mainstream retailers like Wal-Mart. The Food and Drug Administration has identified at least 77 products since June that consumers should avoid due to their methanol levels. Methanol can be toxic when it is absorbed through the skin, and can cause blindness, causing great concerns since hand sanitizer is applied to the skin and has been applied in large quantities since the beginning of the pandemics. The products are mislabeled, meaning consumers cannot tell which hand sanitizers contain methanol and which ones do not.

It is thought that the increased demand for hand sanitizer and other household cleaning or disinfectant supplies led to the unsafe products. In response to the demand, many companies began to increase their production, but failed to ensure the quality of the product would remain the same. As a result, hand sanitizers that were unsafe for consumers made it into the market. The Washington Post reported that at least seven people have died and dozens of others have been hospitalized as a result of the unsafe hand sanitizer.

July 28, 2020

Holding Landlords Accountable for Indiana Apartment Accidents

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Landlords, like all property owners, have a duty to ensure that the houses and apartments they rent to tenants are safe. Whether it is the driveway being plowed after a snowstorm or handling potentially dangerous maintenance issues, tenants often have certain expectations for their landlord. If a person is hurt because of their landlord’s negligence, Indiana law allows them to hold the landlord liable for their injuries.

In a recent state appellate opinion, the court was tasked with deciding whether a landlord could be held liable for a tenant’s slip and fall outside of the apartment complex. According to the court’s opinion, the tenant was severely injured exiting the apartment building, slipping on a patch of ice in the driveway. While the landlord normally hired a snow plow contractor to keep the driveway safe, they failed to do so this particular winter. The plaintiff sued his landlord for not keeping the property safe and not removing the snow and ice from the driveway, the cause of his injury.

In this case, the court noted that a tenant who slips on ice can bring a negligence claim against a landlord who failed to exercise reasonable care in removing the ice, unless the plaintiff is more than fifty percent responsible for their injuries. Here, the court ruled that the landlord was negligent as he did not attempt to remove the snow or ice. However, the court also held that the tenant’s injuries were more attributable to his own error than the landlord’s. Thus, the court found that the landlord was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

July 21, 2020

Fatal Indiana Car Crash Results in Truck Driver Being Charged with Nine Felonies

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Driving on a busy interstate can be dangerous, so it’s always important to engage in defensive driving and to be proactive and alert on the road. However, one can only do so much to be safe, and Indiana car accidents will still occur even when a motorist is exercising the most caution possible. Thus, when a car crash occur sunexpectedly, especially as a result of negligence from the responsible party and cause fatalities, those who are at fault in these collisions can be held accountable.

In a recent news report, an Indiana truck driver was charged with nine felonies related to an Interstate 70 accident. The driver had previously been arrested three times for drug possession in another state and was jailed following the accident. He was charged with four Level 4 felony counts of operating while intoxicated and causing death, four Level 5 felony counts of reckless homicide, and one Level 4 felony count of driving while intoxicated and causing a catastrophic injury. The tragic car accident resulted in the death of four children.

Following the accident, results of a urine test taken hours after the accident came back positive for the presence of marijuana, amphetamines, and ecstasy in the driver’s system. Despite completing a drug treatment program after being arrested for possession of heroin previously in another state and multiple other drug-related offenses, the legal system failed to keep this man off the roads until this fatal accident.

July 13, 2020

Indiana Personal Injury Claims after an Airline Accident

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

International travel can present travelers with some unique legal issues, including jurisdictional conflicts. In some cases, the claims may involve a different country or a foreign airport or airline. The Montreal Convention addresses the inherent issues that many Indiana personal injury victims face after these types of accidents. The Montreal Convention is a multilateral treaty adopted by many counties to establish standards for the international transport of passengers, baggage, and cargo. It covers all international flights between counties that are a party to the treaty.

A significant portion of the treaty includes what rights passengers have when they suffer injuries on a flight, experience a flight disruption, or an adverse situation with their luggage or cargo. At its core, the treaty makes an airline strictly liable for injuries or death that a passenger experiences, because of an “accident” that occurs while embarking or disembarking the aircraft.

Issues often arise over the circumstances surrounding an “accident,” and what the term covers. Courts tend to agree that the term “accident” is vague, but that it does include injuries resulting from terroristic activities, passenger assaults, and an airline’s failure to treat passengers who are experiencing a medical event adequately. Further complications develop when the harmful event occurs outside of the aircraft. In these situations, courts will evaluate whether the incident happened when the victim was in the “operation” of boarding or exiting the plane. This inquiry involves looking at the victim’s actions when the event occurred and the exact location of the incident.

July 7, 2020

Indiana Appellate Court Finds for Defendants in Sports Injury Case

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

Recently, an Indiana appellate court issued a ruling regarding personal injury claims resulting from participation in sports activity. According to the court’s opinion, the case involved a horse jockey who was injured while training a horse at a racetrack. The jockey was injured when another horse, which had thrown off its rider, barreled into the jockey’s horse tossing him to the ground. The jockey sued the racetrack and the horse’s owner for damages based on negligence and premises liability. However, the court found in favor of the defendants, and the jockey was prevented from recovering damages for his injuries. The court’s opinion could have far-reaching implications for individuals injured while participating in sporting activities.

In reviewing the plaintiff’s claims, the court first reviewed Indiana sports-injury law, and mentioned a few important precedents. First, there is the rule of assumption of duty, which states that an actor who provides safety measures as a service to another and is aware the services will reduce a risk of harm to that individual owes a duty of care to that individual. A defendant violates that duty of care, and may be held liable for resulting injury, if (1) they are negligent in providing that service and it results in an increased risk of harm, or (2) the individual receiving the services relies on the actor in assuming the risk of injury involved. Next, the court discussed the concept that a sports participant cannot be held liable for causing injury to another while engaging in conduct ordinary to the sport unless they acted recklessly or with intent to cause the injury. This rule is rooted in public policy, and designed to prevent discouragement of athletic participation due to vexatious litigation.

In applying these principles to the case in its opinion, the court first pointed out that the plaintiff did not make any allegations that the racetrack owner’s negligence in employing certain safety measures it had in place increased the risk of harm to the plaintiff. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not present any evidence showing that he relied on the racetrack’s safety measures properly when deciding to engage in the activity. In effect, the court found that the plaintiff assumed the risk of injury associated with participation in the activity. Therefore, the court ruled against the plaintiff in regard to his claims against the racetrack owner.

June 25, 2020

The Rescue Doctrine in Indiana Personal Injury Cases

by Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP

The human instinct to help those in need, even at the risk of one’s own safety, is commendable. When a person is injured during such a situation, the rescue doctrine can come into play. In Indiana, the rescue doctrine allows an individual who is injured attempting to rescue someone from a dangerous situation to hold the negligent actor liable. In order to bring a successful claim, the rescuer must prove: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to protect him from injury; (2) the defendant failed to perform that duty; and (3) the plaintiff’s harm resulted from the defendant’s failure to protect him from injury. If an individual is considered a rescuer, then he is owed a duty of care by those that contributed to the dangerous situation.

In a recent case, another state supreme court was recently tasked with deciding whether a man qualified as a rescuer when he was injured after encouraging others to stop fighting. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff was a rescuer despite exerting no bodily activity to intervene in the situation. However, in Indiana, an individual must actually attempt to rescue and exert physical effort to be qualified as a rescuer.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff was injured after attempting to rescue a taxi cab driver from an intoxicated passenger. Hearing cries for help, the plaintiff approached the cab and told the passenger to stop punching the driver. The plaintiff was then hit over the head and run over by the passenger. He filed a lawsuit against the taxi cab company because they had knowledge of previous passenger attacks on drivers but had failed to install partitions or security cameras. Relying on the rescue doctrine, he claimed he was injured while rescuing the driver, who was owed a duty by the cab company, meaning it also owed a duty to him. Among other issues, the court was tasked with deciding whether the plaintiff was considered a rescuer even though he did not take bodily action to save the driver from danger. The court ruled that, rather than requiring physical intervention, one must assess whether a plaintiff can qualify as a rescuer based on three important factors: (1) the plaintiff’s reason for acting, (2) the plaintiff’s reasonable belief that someone was in imminent peril, and (3) the utility of the plaintiff’s conduct. The plaintiff satisfied the test and qualified as a rescuer.