Some of our cases have resulted in published decisions which other courts, treatises and commentators often have cited as authority. Below is partial listing of these cases.
Sonya WINCHELL v. Remco GUY, Ariel Graham and Fort Wayne Area Taco Bell Restaurant Owners Association, d/b/a Taco Bell, Appellee-Defendants.
No. 90A02-0604-CV-346.-- December 06, 2006- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1355461.html#sthash.fCcLmgHW.dpuf
A Wells County judge originally ruled against Sonya Winchell, but the appellate panel found the restaurant owed her a duty to ensure her safety and a jury should decide whether Taco Bell met that obligation.
No. 90A02-0604-CV-346.-- December 06, 2006- See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-court-of-appeals/1355461.html#sthash.fCcLmgHW.dpuf
A Wells County judge originally ruled against Sonya Winchell, but the appellate panel found the restaurant owed her a duty to ensure her safety and a jury should decide whether Taco Bell met that obligation.
Vergara v. Doan
Supreme Court of Indiana
June 8, 1992
Dr. Doan delivered the Vergara's child vaginally in spite of a history of prior difficult pregnancies. He did not order an ultra sound before delivery. During birth, Javier Vergara suffered serious and permanent spinal injury. The Vergaras sued Dr. Doan for medical malpractice. The Trial Court found for Dr. Doan. The case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Prior to this case, Indiana had a specific way to determine reasonable standard of care for medical malpractice. In Indiana, the standard of care was the standard of care taken by doctors in similar localities (aka the locality rule). In the past, the medical treatment in rural areas was nowhere near the standard available in urban areas. So the doctors were only held to a standard of care similar to other doctors in the area.
The Indiana Supreme Court in Vergara overturned the locality rule because it permitted a lower standard of care for people who lived in poor communities. Instead, they created a broader mechanism to determine standard of care that includes many factors, including advances in the profession, availability of facilities, type of doctor, and to some extent locality.
Supreme Court of Indiana
June 8, 1992
Dr. Doan delivered the Vergara's child vaginally in spite of a history of prior difficult pregnancies. He did not order an ultra sound before delivery. During birth, Javier Vergara suffered serious and permanent spinal injury. The Vergaras sued Dr. Doan for medical malpractice. The Trial Court found for Dr. Doan. The case was appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.
Prior to this case, Indiana had a specific way to determine reasonable standard of care for medical malpractice. In Indiana, the standard of care was the standard of care taken by doctors in similar localities (aka the locality rule). In the past, the medical treatment in rural areas was nowhere near the standard available in urban areas. So the doctors were only held to a standard of care similar to other doctors in the area.
The Indiana Supreme Court in Vergara overturned the locality rule because it permitted a lower standard of care for people who lived in poor communities. Instead, they created a broader mechanism to determine standard of care that includes many factors, including advances in the profession, availability of facilities, type of doctor, and to some extent locality.
