essential element claim in Indiana

2023A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted “only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” Stewart, 53 N.E.3d at 568 (quoting Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ind. 2008) (quotation omitted), reh’g denied).

2023Ultimately, the sufficiency analysis comes down to one word: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2060 | October 10, 2023 Page 11 of 35 “reasonable.” See, e.g., [Raess, 883 N.E.2d at 793 ] (“A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911, 914 (Ind. 1993) (“If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn

2020If there is evidence that would allow reasonable people to differ as to the result, judgment on the evidence is improper.” Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp., 567 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (judgment on the evidence is appropriate when there is a “complete failure of proof . . . supporting an essential element of the claim”), trans. denied. [10] To prevail on a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the physician breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s

2011The Indiana Supreme Court has held that “[a] motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted ‘only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.’ ” Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ind.2008) (quoting Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp., 567 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied), reh’g denied.

2011Upon appellate review of a trial court’s ruling on such a motion, the reviewing court “must consider only the *1283 evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 793-794 (quoting Sipes v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co. of Am., Inc., 546 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (Ind.1989)).

2008Upon appellate review of a trial court ruling on such a motion, the reviewing court “must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Sipes v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 546 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (Ind.1989), quoting Jones v. Gleim, 468 N.E.2d 205, 206 (Ind.1984).

2000Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. Department of Metropolitan Development of Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 630 N.E.2d 1381, 1384 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2000Foursquare Tabernacle Church of God in Christ v. Department of Metropolitan Development of Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 630 N.E.2d 1381, 1384 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2005Id.

2002See Ind. Trial Rule 50(A); Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 877 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).

2014“In federal 5 practice, the moving party is not required to negate an opponent’s claim; instead, summary judgment must be granted when the nonmovant has failed to establish an essential element of its claim.” Dennis v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 831 N.E.2d 171, 173 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), trans. denied.

2014In Indiana, however, “[m]erely alleging that the plaintiff has failed to produce evidence on each element … is insufficient to entitle the defendant to summary judgment.” Id. (quoting Jarboe, 644 N.E.2d at 123 ).

2023Ultimately, the sufficiency analysis comes down to one word: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2060 | October 10, 2023 Page 11 of 35 “reasonable.” See, e.g., [Raess, 883 N.E.2d at 793 ] (“A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911, 914 (Ind. 1993) (“If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn

2012Ultimately, the sufficiency analysis comes down to one word: “reasonable.” See, e.g., Raess v. Doescher, 888 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ind.2008) (“A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911, 914 (Ind.1993) (“If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the plaintiff or if there is evi

2023Ultimately, the sufficiency analysis comes down to one word: Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-MI-2060 | October 10, 2023 Page 11 of 35 “reasonable.” See, e.g., [Raess, 883 N.E.2d at 793 ] (“A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911, 914 (Ind. 1993) (“If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn

2012Ultimately, the sufficiency analysis comes down to one word: “reasonable.” See, e.g., Raess v. Doescher, 888 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ind.2008) (“A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” (emphasis added) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911, 914 (Ind.1993) (“If there is any probative evidence or reasonable inference to be drawn from the evidence in favor of the plaintiff or if there is evi

2016Oil Co., 949 N.E.2d 1273, 1282 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (quoting Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ind.2008) (quoting Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp., 567 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied), reh’g denied), trans. denied.

2016Oil Co., 949 N.E.2d 1273, 1282 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 794 (Ind. 2008) (quoting Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp., 567 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991), trans. denied), reh’g denied), trans. denied.

2000Id. at 827 ; see also Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend, 639 N.E.2d 278, 281 (Ind.1994).

2000See Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend, 639 N.E.2d 278, 281 (Ind.1994); see also Ind. Trial Rule 56(E); Shell Oil Co. v. Lovold Co., 705 N.E.2d 981, 984 (Ind.1998).

1982Accordingly, statements such as those employed in Ortho Pharmaceutical Corporation v. Chapman (1979), Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 541 , 544 typify our expression of the trial court’s obligation in ruling upon such motions: “The rule in Indiana with respect to motions pursuant to TR 50, for judgment on the evidence, is that such a motion may properly be granted only if there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference derived therefrom supporting an essential element of the claim: a complete failure of proof.

1982However, a judgment on the evidence should be entered only when “there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference derived therefrom supporting an essential element of the claim: a complete failure of proof.” Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Chapman, (1979) Ind.App., 388 N.E.2d 541, 544 , trans. denied.

2023A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted “only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” Stewart, 53 N.E.3d at 568 (quoting Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ind. 2008) (quotation omitted), reh’g denied).

2019Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 19A-PL-582 | December 2, 2019 Page 18 of 30 failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” Stewart v. Alunday, 53 N.E.3d 562, 568 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (quoting Raess v. Doescher, 883 N.E.2d 790, 793 (Ind. 2008)).

2013Keith v. Mendus, 661 N.E.2d 26, 35-36 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (internal citations omitted).

2008On the contrary, Indiana case law has generally followed the Keith formulation that permits a new trial under T.R. 50(C) if the reviewing court finds, limiting appellate consideration to “the evidence most favorable to the nonmoving party,” that "there is no evidence or reasonable inferences therefrom to support an essential element of the claim.” Keith, 661 N.E.2d at 31 . 3 .

2024The motion should be granted “only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” Id.

2019“If there is relevant evidence that supports the verdict, a motion for judgment on the evidence is improper because the final determination must be left to the fact-finder.” Id. [10] Determining whether evidence is sufficient to survive a motion for judgment on the evidence “requires both a quantitative and a qualitative analysis.” Purcell v. Old Nat’l Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835, 840 (Ind. 2012) (quoting Am.

2008Upon appellate review of a trial court ruling on such a motion, the reviewing court "must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party." Sipes v. Osmose *794 Wood Preserving Co., 546 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (Ind.1989), quoting Jones v. Gleim, 468 N.E.2d 205, 206 (Ind.1984).

2008Upon appellate review of a trial court ruling on such a motion, the reviewing court “must consider only the evidence and reasonable inferences most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Sipes v. Osmose Wood Preserving Co., 546 N.E.2d 1223, 1224 (Ind.1989), quoting Jones v. Gleim, 468 N.E.2d 205, 206 (Ind.1984).

2024“A motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” Overshiner, 119 N.E.3d at 1131 (citations omitted).

2024As such, “[a] motion for judgment on the evidence should be granted only when there is a complete failure of proof because there is no substantial evidence or reasonable inference supporting an essential element of the claim.” Overshiner v. Hendricks Reg’l Health, 119 N.E.3d 1124, 1131 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. [30] In support of its motion for a directed verdict, IndyGo relied on the common law defense of contributory negligence, which, if established, will operate as a complete bar to the Estate’s action.

2020If there is evidence that would allow reasonable people to differ as to the result, judgment on the evidence is improper.” Id. (internal citation omitted); see also Dahlin v. Amoco Oil Corp., 567 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (judgment on the evidence is appropriate when there is a “complete failure of proof . . . supporting an essential element of the claim”), trans. denied. [10] To prevail on a medical malpractice claim, the plaintiff must prove: “(1) the physician owed a duty to the plaintiff; (2) the physician breached that duty; and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s

2019In making her argument, Grigsby relies on the evidence and the inferences in her favor that 8 To the extent that Grigsby argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the negative judgment, this argument is unavailable on appeal. “[A] party’s failure to present evidence at trial sufficient to sustain the burden of proof on an essential element of his claim is clearly not grounds for a new trial.” DeVittorio v. Werker Bros., 634 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); see also McCarty v. Sheets, 423 N.E.2d 297, 301 (Ind. 1981) (holding that appellant-plaintiff’s argument that the trial c

2019In making her argument, Grigsby relies on the evidence and the inferences in her favor that 8 To the extent that Grigsby argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the negative judgment, this argument is unavailable on appeal. “[A] party’s failure to present evidence at trial sufficient to sustain the burden of proof on an essential element of his claim is clearly not grounds for a new trial.” DeVittorio v. Werker Bros., 634 N.E.2d 528, 532 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994); see also McCarty v. Sheets, 423 N.E.2d 297, 301 (Ind. 1981) (holding that appellant-plaintiff’s argument that the trial c