9 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2025 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Plesha v. Edmonds Ex Rel. Edmondsgreen2 sentences2017Edmonds , 717 N.E.2d 981 , 987 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) ). 2010Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied 735 N.E.2d 235 (Ind.2000). | 3 | 4 |
City of Fort Wayne v. Katie Parrishgreen2 sentences2020Generally speaking, “the unexcused violation of a statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the provision (1) ‘protects the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1711-CT-2621 | September 25, 2020 Page 6 of 16 class of persons in which the plaintiff is included’ and (2) ‘protects against the type of harm [that] has occurred as a result of the violation.’” Stachowski v. Estate of Radman, 95 N.E.3d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, 32 N.E.3d 275, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied). [9] Be that as it may, to succeed in a negli 2020Generally speaking, “the unexcused violation of a statute or ordinance constitutes negligence per se if the provision (1) ‘protects the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 79A05-1711-CT-2621 | September 25, 2020 Page 6 of 16 class of persons in which the plaintiff is included’ and (2) ‘protects against the type of harm [that] has occurred as a result of the violation.’” Stachowski v. Estate of Radman, 95 N.E.3d 542, 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (quoting City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, 32 N.E.3d 275, 277 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied). [9] Be that as it may, to succeed in a negli | 2 | 3 |
Kho v. Penningtongreen2 sentences2017The other prohibits an owner from permitting his animal to be at large. [16] The Indiana Supreme Court has held that the unexcused violation of a statutory duty constitutes negligence per se "if the *606 statute or ordinance is intended to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included and to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation." Kho v. Pennington , 875 N.E.2d 208 , 212-13 (Ind. 2007) (citing Plesha v. Edmonds ex rel. 2010It noted Indiana courts "have a long and continuous history of recognizing negligence actions for statutory violations," id. at 212 , and that the unexcused violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se "if the statute or ordinance is intended to protect the class *461 of persons in which the plaintiff is included and to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation." Id. at 213-14 (quoting Plesha v. Edmonds ex rel. | 1 | 4 |
Brenda and John Stachowski v. Estate of Daniel Radmangreen2 sentences2025The class of persons the Scooter Ordinance protects. [19] To determine whether the unexcused violation of an ordinance constitutes negligence per se, we must first determine whether the ordinance “protects the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included.” Stachowski, 95 N.E.3d at 544 . 2025The type of harm suffered. [25] To determine whether the unexcused violation of an ordinance constitutes negligence per se, we must also determine whether the statute or ordinance “protects against the type of harm [that] has occurred as a result of the violation.” Stachowski, 95 N.E.3d at 544 . | 1 | 2 |
Vandenbosch v. Dailygreen1 sentence2010Vandenbosch v. Daily, 785 N.E.2d 666, 669 (Ind.Ct.App.2003), trans. denied. | 1 | 1 |
French v. Bristol-Myers Co.green2 sentences2007Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citing French v. Bristol Myers Co., 574 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied), trans. denied; see also State v. Snyder, 732 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Lever Bros. 2007Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citing French v. Bristol Myers Co., 574 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied), trans. denied; see also State v. Snyder, 732 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Lever Bros. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Snydergreen2 sentences2007Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citing French v. Bristol Myers Co., 574 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied), trans. denied; see also State v. Snyder, 732 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Lever Bros. 2007Edmonds, 717 N.E.2d 981, 986 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (citing French v. Bristol Myers Co., 574 N.E.2d 940, 943 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. denied), trans. denied; see also State v. Snyder, 732 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Lever Bros. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman
green
1 sentence2018In other words, a finding of negligence per se merely represents a judicial acceptance of "the legislative judgment that acts in violation of the statute constitute unreasonable conduct." Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman , 796 N.E.2d 271 , 276 (Ind. 2003). | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.