Group photo of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
Badges and Certifications of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP
Why Choose Us
A Nationally Acclaimed
Law Firm

Devoted to your personal injury or accident case.

Our Successes
Million Dollar
Verdicts & Settlements

For injury victims throughout Indiana and the Midwest.

Our Firm History
Our Firm
was founded in 1899

On the highest of ethical, moral, and legal standards.

When a hospital or medical provider deviates from a generally accepted standard of care and causes harm to a patient, they may be liable for the patient’s injuries through an Indiana medical malpractice lawsuit. All personal injury lawsuits require plaintiffs to present a significant amount of evidence to establish their claim to damages. In addition to the typical evidentiary burdens that a plaintiff has to meet, Indiana medical malpractice laws impose additional obstacles on injury victims. There are various forms of medical malpractice, and injury victims should seek the representation of an Indiana malpractice attorney when pursuing these lawsuits.

The most common types of medical malpractice lawsuits stem from diagnosis errors, surgical errors, treatment failures, birth injuries, prescription drug errors, and laboratory mistakes. Laboratory professionals are responsible for the proper collection, handling, interpretation, and reporting of their results. Laboratory testing and their accompanying results are a critical part of an individual’s medical treatment, as these reports may affect diagnosis and dictate treatment. Moreover, laboratory machines, products, or devices may also cause severe injury or death to a patient. Injuries can occur if the handler does not know how to use the equipment correctly or if the device is defective. Defective devices may include, drains, tubes, pumps, measuring instruments, centrifuges, and catheters. When a lab error occurs, the consequences can be life-altering, or even fatal.

For example, recently, a national news report detailed the tragic death of infants receiving treatment at a neonatal intensive care unit in a hospital. Late last summer, several infants began to show signs of illness, and three subsequently died of a bacterial infection. During an investigation, the hospital discovered that the infants died after exposure to infected donor milk. The hospital’s infection control unit determined that the laboratory equipment used to measure the donor milk contained the deadly bacteria. The bacteria generally only present a threat to fragile individuals, such as preterm immunocompromised babies. Following the deaths and discovery of the bacteria, the hospital began diverting the care of premature babies to other hospitals. So far, one of the families who lost a child has filed a lawsuit against the hospital.

The Indiana Medical Malpractice Act governs most lawsuits based on injuries that a person suffers because of the negligence of an Indiana hospital or medical provider. When an Indiana pharmacist, medical resident, nurse, doctor, or surgeon causes injuries because they deviated from a reasonable standard of care, they may face liability under the Act. To collect damages, a medical malpractice victim must also overcome any issues surrounding their own fault or contribution to their injuries.

Under Indiana, law, courts measure negligence by comparing the negligent actor’s conduct against that of someone acting under similar circumstances. Using this framework, a plaintiff must prove that the healthcare provider breached a reasonable standard of care. To meet this burden, plaintiffs must present testimony from a similarly situated healthcare provider. This provider must be able to address applicable standards of care and opine on whether the defendant departed from this standard.

Further, plaintiffs may need to address a defendant’s assertion that the plaintiff contributed to their injuries and damages. Generally, Indiana negligence lawsuits apply the modified comparative fault standard. Modified comparative fault means that each party’s fault will factor into the total amount of damages that the plaintiff can receive. Under Indiana law, a plaintiff that is more than 51% responsible for their injuries will not be eligible to recover for their damages. However, the state’s Comparative Fault Act does not apply to medical malpractice lawsuits.

Drunk driving is still a widespread issue throughout the country, which is why many states have developed strict laws to try to address it. In Indiana, the state’s Dram Shop Act (the Act) holds providers of alcoholic beverages liable in Indiana personal injury cases where the providers knowingly serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. In those cases, the providers can be held responsible for any reasonably foreseeable consequences.

There are both criminal and civil penalties under the Act. A provider can be held liable for damages in a civil case if the provider furnishes an alcoholic beverage, and the provider has actual knowledge that the person was visibly intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverage was provided. The person’s intoxication must also be a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. This also means that if a person is injured because of the person’s own voluntary intoxication, the person may be able to recover from the provider who furnished the person an alcoholic beverage.

Actual knowledge means that the provider knew that the person was visibly intoxicated. Of course, a provider will not always admit to knowing that, so courts will make reasonable inferences based upon the evidence presented in the case. This might include how many drinks the person consumed and during what period, and the person’s behavior at the time. Experts are often used in these cases because they can provide information about at what point a person would show signs of visible intoxication.

When an individual suffers an injury at an Indiana business, they should explore all possible avenues of relief against all potentially liable parties. In addition to the person or entity that is directly responsible for their injuries, Indiana injury victims should consider third-parties, who also contributed to the damages they sustained. In some cases, business owners may be accountable under a negligent entrustment theory when an injury results from a dangerous instrumentality.

For example, recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a case stemming from injuries a woman suffered at a grocery store. Among other issues, the woman filed a negligent entrustment claim against the grocery store when a customer driving a motorized cart struck her. The woman alleged that the grocery chain provided the cart to customers without any instruction or warnings and assumed that the drivers knew how to operate the cart. The lower trial court found in favor of the woman; however, the appellate court ultimately concluded that the woman did not meet the causation element of a negligent entrustment case. Further, they held that she could not prove that the store should have known that the driver would operate the cart negligently or recklessly.

An individual or entity may be liable under the theory of negligent entrustment when they allow a person to operate a dangerous instrumentality, and that person causes an injury to a third party while using that instrumentality. Often, these cases arise when a person entrusts someone with a vehicle or a firearm. Victims in these cases can prevail based on the idea that the person entrusting the item to the negligent party should have known that the person could harm others with the object based on the negligent party’s inexperience or age.

The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a statute designed to allow private individuals a way to hold the government and their employees responsible for tortious acts that they commit. Before the passage of the FTCA, the government was immune from lawsuits based on the theory of sovereign immunity. However, the FTCA allows Indiana injury victims to hold the federal government responsible for their negligent and wrongful acts. However, the FTCA has 13 exceptions to the waiver of immunity, including the often-cited “discretionary function” exception.

The discretionary function exception bars lawsuits based upon claims that arose based on a government actor’s discretionary function or duty. Generally, the court will engage in a two-step inquiry when the government cites this exception. First, the court will look at whether the actions involve an element of judgment or choice, as opposed to a ministerial duty. If an element of choice or judgment exists, then the court will look to whether the judgment was the kind of decision that the exception was designed to shield.

For example, recently, two families sued the United States government under the FTCA when a tree limb fell, killing their sons at a national park. The families filed wrongful death claims against the government, arguing that the park safety officials knew or should have known about the danger of the tree and failed to warn visitors of the threat. The government successfully moved to dismiss the claims, stating that evaluating and responding to the hazard was a discretionary function which was entitled to immunity.

Recently, an Indiana news report covered a fatal car accident that occurred on I-70. According to Indiana State Police, the accident victim was driving on the highway when he swerved into another car. The driver died on impact, and the other driver was taken to the hospital for life-threatening injuries. Investigations revealed that the accident victim was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident.

In Indiana, seat belt use is a mandatory requirement that can help to protect many accident victims from severe injuries or death. Seat belts help drivers and passengers by preventing them from flying through their vehicle’s windshield, smashing into the dashboard, or falling out of the car. Seat belts are proven to mitigate the injuries and damages that accident victims suffer during a car accident.

When an individual is involved in an accident with a negligent driver, the other driver may try and limit their liability by pointing to the victim’s failure to wear their seat belt. Insurance companies and defendants might claim that the plaintiff’s injuries and damages would not have been as severe had they were wearing a seat belt. Although this may be true, Indiana law does not allow defendants to use evidence of an accident victim’s seat belt non-use as a factor in a comparative negligence determination.

Swimming pools provide Indiana residents with an enjoyable way to spend time with family and friends. However, as with many recreational activities, swimming pools can pose significant dangers to users. In fact, according to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, Indiana swimming pool accidents rate among the highest in the country for drownings involving children under 15 years old.

Swimming pools pose various hazards and dangers to their users, including, drowning, slip and falls, and injuries because of pool drains. In many instances, these accidents occur because there are a lack of safety features and devices such as fences and flotation devices. Moreover, many times, owners fail to employ lifeguards and maintain railings and ladders. Swimming pool owners and operators can take simple steps to prevent common pool and spa hazards. Owners should install fences around their pool. They should also ensure that there are proficient adult lifeguards and swimmers on site. Moreover, owners and operators should keep up with pool maintenance.

In many cases, owners can be liable for injuries that people sustain while using their pools. Liability depends on the owner and the visitor’s legal classification. Generally, visitors are designated into three categories, either an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. An invitee may be a guest who uses a public pool. Typically, the owner must maintain and repair the pool to prevent injuries. Licensees, are commonly social guests using a pool on private property. In these cases, the owner must warn their guests of hazards that may not be obvious. Lastly, owners must not intentionally harm trespassers, but they do not owe them any other duty unless the pool is an attractive nuisance.

When a person slips, and falls on another’s property in Indiana, the fall victim may be able to collect damages for the injuries they sustained. Indiana premises liability law establishes when a property owner is responsible for an accident victim’s injuries. Thus, it is important that slip and fall victims understand the state’s statute of limitations, duties, defenses, and damages before filing a lawsuit against a negligent property owner.

Under Indiana Code section 34-11-2-4, personal injury complainants must comply with the state’s two-year deadline. The statute of limitations applies to all negligence, intentional tort, and defamation lawsuits in Indiana. There are certain exceptions to the two-year deadline, such as if the injured party was under 18 years old at the time of the accident or they are mentally incapacitated. An exception may also apply if the culpable party leaves the state or attempts to conceal their identity.

Indiana slip and fall victims must be able to establish that the property owner owes the plaintiff a duty to exercise reasonable care from foreseeable hazards on the property. However, it is essential to note that the law does not require property owners to ensure a person’s safety while they are on the property. Typically, a property owner will be liable if they had knowledge of the dangerous condition, or if it was present for enough time that the owner should have discovered the hazard and prevented the injury. Indiana property owners must inspect and keep their property in a reasonably safe condition.

Indiana arbitration agreements are commonplace, and many people agree to the terms without fully understanding what arbitration entails. Arbitration is an out-of-court method to resolve disputes among parties. It is designed to cut costs and allow the parties to reach an agreement without a trial. However, arbitration clauses generally favor the businesses that include them in their contracts. And it is important to know that there are instances where an arbitration agreement is not valid, or arbitration is not appropriate.

For example, in a recent opinion, a state appellate court addressed issues that commonly arise in Indiana nursing home lawsuits where a defendant is trying to compel arbitration. According to the court’s opinion, a nursing facility attempted to compel arbitration after a plaintiff asserted claims of negligence, willful misconduct, elder abuse, and wrongful death against the facility. The plaintiff’s mother was suffering from various ailments and required nursing home care. When the woman entered the facility, the plaintiff signed but did not date an arbitration agreement. Sometime after her admittance, the woman was transferred to a hospital where doctors discovered, among other things, that her leg required amputation. Sadly, the woman died shortly after. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming that the nursing home withheld care, and recklessly disregarded her mother’s health and safety. The nursing home tried to compel arbitration based on the admittance contract.

The defendant argued that arbitration was appropriate because a facility representative witnessed the mother provide the daughter with express authority to sign the agreement on her behalf. The daughter countered that the facility fabricated the circumstances surrounding the execution of the contract. She explained that her mother did not provide her with authorization to sign the agreement on her behalf, and she was not in the room during admittance. Ultimately, the court concluded that the agreement was both procedurally invalid and substantively unconscionable.

Earlier this month, a 26-year-old man was killed in a tragic car accident in Indiana County. According to a local news report covering the accident, the crash occurred around 3:00 a.m. at the intersection of Ofman and Shellbark Road in West Wheatfield Township. The driver, who is presumed to have been driving too fast, failed to stop at an intersection and then drove into a wooded area. The car then hit several trees and rocks, and as a result, the car’s passenger was thrown through the windshield, and the car landed on him. Police believe that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol, adding an extra layer of tragedy to the accident.

Many car accidents are unavoidable, but in some situations, the driver is actually able to avoid certain risk factors that contribute to the accident, including intoxicated driving. Unfortunately, however, intoxicated driving remains a leading cause of Indiana car accidents. Most often, these cases involve alcohol intoxication, although the law does not distinguish between alcohol intoxication and intoxication from other substances. No matter what form, intoxicated driving puts the driver, the passengers, and others on the road at risk.

Driving while intoxicated is against the law, and when a fatal accident occurs as a result of an intoxicated driver, criminal charges are always possible. These charges may come with fines or jail time for the driver, depending on the nature of the crash and the injuries. However, these criminal charges do little to help the accident victim’s family deal with the expenses they occurred, or the tragic loss they suffered as a result of the accident.