Webb test in Indiana

2015In Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 995 , our supreme court developed a useful tool for analyzing whether a duty exists, which requires the balancing of three factors: “(1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion | 88A01-1410-CT-440 | June 23, 2015 Page 9 of 17 public policy concerns.” In the present case, the parties agree that the three-part Webb test is the proper analysis for determining whether Empire Gas owed a duty of care to the Tenants.

2015In Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 995 , our supreme court developed a useful tool for analyzing whether a duty exists, which requires the balancing of three factors: “(1) the relationship between the parties, (2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured, and (3) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion | 88A01-1410-CT-440 | June 23, 2015 Page 9 of 17 public policy concerns.” In the present case, the parties agree that the three-part Webb test is the proper analysis for determining whether Empire Gas owed a duty of care to the Tenants.

2005The Webb analysis involves the balancing of three factors: "1) the relationship between the parties; 2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured; and 3) public policy concerns." Goldsberry, 672 N.E.2d at 478 (citing Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 995 ).

2005The Webb analysis involves the balancing of three factors: "1) the relationship between the parties; 2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured; and 3) public policy concerns." Goldsberry, 672 N.E.2d at 478 (citing Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 995 ).

2016However, a Webb analysis is only appropriate "in those instances where the element of duty has not already been declared or otherwise articulated.” Sharp, 790 N.E.2d at 465 ; see also Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d at 1053 ("Where, as in this case, the alleged duty is well-established, there is no need for a new judicial redetermination of duty.”).

2016However, a Webb analysis is only appropriate "in those instances where the element of duty has not already been declared or otherwise articulated.” Sharp, 790 N.E.2d at 465 ; see also Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d at 1053 ("Where, as in this case, the alleged duty is well-established, there is no need for a new judicial redetermination of duty.”).

2024The court considered whether the insurance company had a duty to preserve the cable, and applied the Webb factors permitting the claim to proceed because “[l]iability insurance carriers are no strangers to litigation, and it strains credulity to posit in a motion to dismiss that a liability carrier could be unaware of the potential importance of physical evidence.” Id. at 137–40.

2024The court considered whether the insurance company had a duty to preserve the cable, and applied the Webb factors permitting the claim to proceed because “[l]iability insurance carriers are no strangers to litigation, and it strains credulity to posit in a motion to dismiss that a liability carrier could be unaware of the potential importance of physical evidence.” Id. at 137–40.

2012Webb v. Jarvis, 553 N.E.2d 151, 155-56 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), trans. granted.

2012Webb v. Jarvis, 553 N.E.2d 151, 155-56 (Ind.Ct.App.1990), trans. granted.

2012Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120, 1126 (Ind.2010) (Dickson, J., dissenting); see also id. at 1125-1126 ("My specific complaint about Webb is that it identifies ‘foreseeability’ as one of the three factors the courts are to evaluate in deciding whether the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff....

2012Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC v. Kephart, 934 N.E.2d 1120, 1126 (Ind.2010) (Dickson, J., dissenting); see also id. at 1125-1126 ("My specific complaint about Webb is that it identifies ‘foreseeability’ as one of the three factors the courts are to evaluate in deciding whether the defendant has a duty to the plaintiff....

2003This Court has long held they owe a duty to “exercise reasonable care and supervision for the safety of the children under their control.” Miller v. Griesel, 261 Ind. 604 , 308 N.E.2d 701, 706 (1974); see also Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 , 974-75 n. 1 (Ind.2001) (specifically declining to apply the three-part Webb test to determine school’s duty to its students).

2003This Court has long held they owe a duty to “exercise reasonable care and supervision for the safety of the children under their control.” Miller v. Griesel, 261 Ind. 604 , 308 N.E.2d 701, 706 (1974); see also Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 , 974-75 n. 1 (Ind.2001) (specifically declining to apply the three-part Webb test to determine school’s duty to its students).

2016ESG argues that the Webb test must be applied. [18] The Indiana Supreme Court recently discussed duty in Goodwin. 5 In that case, patrons injured after a shooting in a neighborhood bar sued the bar for negligence. 62 N.E.3d at 385 .

2016ESG argues that the Webb test must be applied. [18] The Indiana Supreme Court recently discussed duty in Goodwin. 5 In that case, patrons injured after a shooting in a neighborhood bar sued the bar for negligence. 62 N.E.3d at 385 .

2018See Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316, 323-24 (Ind. 2016) (noting the Webb analysis applies only when there does not already exist a recognized duty of care).

2018See Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316, 323-24 (Ind. 2016) (noting the Webb analysis applies only when there does not already exist a recognized duty of care).

2005The Bush court did not even address the public policy prong of the Webb analysis before concluding that "no duty existed and summary judgment in favor of NIPSCO was proper." Id. 16 Having reviewed the applicable legal authority cited by the parties, we believe that the Utilities' duty was properly articulated in Goldsberry: namely, that utility companies owe a duty to the motoring public to exercise reasonable care in placing utility poles along Indiana's public roads and highways.

2005The Bush court did not even address the public policy prong of the Webb analysis before concluding that "no duty existed and summary judgment in favor of NIPSCO was proper." Id. 16 Having reviewed the applicable legal authority cited by the parties, we believe that the Utilities' duty was properly articulated in Goldsberry: namely, that utility companies owe a duty to the motoring public to exercise reasonable care in placing utility poles along Indiana's public roads and highways.

2026A. Yost Does Not Control [19] In Yost, a fraternity pledge—Brian Yost—was injured when he was hazed by other student members of his local fraternity chapter at Wabash College. 3 N.E.3d 509, 513 (Ind. 2014).

2026A. Yost Does Not Control [19] In Yost, a fraternity pledge—Brian Yost—was injured when he was hazed by other student members of his local fraternity chapter at Wabash College. 3 N.E.3d 509, 513 (Ind. 2014).

2024See Wells, 657 N.E.2d at 176 (“As a general rule, the common law does not hold a parent liable for the tortious acts of her minor children.”). [45] Thus, when an exception such as negligent parental supervision is alleged, we turn not to the Webb analysis—(1) relationship between the parties; (2) foreseeability of harm; and (3) public policy concerns—but to the foreseeability in the context of duty analysis, first developed by Wells, and shaped by the subsequent cases of our Supreme Court.

2024See Wells, 657 N.E.2d at 176 (“As a general rule, the common law does not hold a parent liable for the tortious acts of her minor children.”). [45] Thus, when an exception such as negligent parental supervision is alleged, we turn not to the Webb analysis—(1) relationship between the parties; (2) foreseeability of harm; and (3) public policy concerns—but to the foreseeability in the context of duty analysis, first developed by Wells, and shaped by the subsequent cases of our Supreme Court.

2020Id. at 518-19 (some citations omitted). [11] Here, in urging us to conclude that Allstate owes her a duty of good faith and fair dealing under the three-part Webb analysis, Schmidt first notes that the relationship between her and Allstate “is that of insured and insurer” and that she had “duties and obligations under the cont[r]act of insurance.” Appellant’s Br. at 48.

2020Id. at 518-19 (some citations omitted). [11] Here, in urging us to conclude that Allstate owes her a duty of good faith and fair dealing under the three-part Webb analysis, Schmidt first notes that the relationship between her and Allstate “is that of insured and insurer” and that she had “duties and obligations under the cont[r]act of insurance.” Appellant’s Br. at 48.

2020See Tolliver v. State, 922 N.E.2d 1272, 1281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (hearsay statements were not considered as statements against interest when they were not “incriminating on their face and [did] not implicate [defendant] in a crime”), trans. denied. 2.

2017See Roberts, 627 N.E.2d at 810 .

2017See Roberts, 627 N.E.2d at 810 .

2017Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946, 974-75 (Ind. 2014). [15] Waiver and invited error notwithstanding, we note that, in fact, there was no error at all.

2016Mullin, 639 N.E.2d at 285 (addressing the distinction between a duty owed to the public at large and a duty owed to a particular individual). [14] In the context of a governmental entity’s dispatch of emergency services, our Supreme Court has applied the Webb factors and set out three elements for imposition of a private duty: (1) an explicit assurance by the municipality (through promises or actions) that it would act on behalf of the injured party; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality that inaction could lead to harm; and (3) justifiable and detrimental reliance by the injured party

2016Mullin, 639 N.E.2d at 285 (addressing the distinction between a duty owed to the public at large and a duty owed to a particular individual). [14] In the context of a governmental entity’s dispatch of emergency services, our Supreme Court has applied the Webb factors and set out three elements for imposition of a private duty: (1) an explicit assurance by the municipality (through promises or actions) that it would act on behalf of the injured party; (2) knowledge on the part of the municipality that inaction could lead to harm; and (3) justifiable and detrimental reliance by the injured party

2016In Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968, 971 (Ind.1999), this Court addressed “whether and to what extent landowners owe any duty to protect their invitees from the criminal acts of third parties.” In explaining the role Webb played in making this determination, we said, Having already determined in Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.1991) that [a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care for an invitee’s protection] exists, we need not formally use the three factor balancing test as enunciated in Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. *324 1991)....

2016In Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968, 971 (Ind.1999), this Court addressed “whether and to what extent landowners owe any duty to protect their invitees from the criminal acts of third parties.” In explaining the role Webb played in making this determination, we said, Having already determined in Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.1991) that [a landowner’s duty to exercise reasonable care for an invitee’s protection] exists, we need not formally use the three factor balancing test as enunciated in Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. *324 1991)....

2016“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Darringer v. State, 46 N.E.3d 464, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “‘The improper admission [of evidence] is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Evans v. State, 30 N.E.3d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011)), trans. den

2016“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Darringer v. State, 46 N.E.3d 464, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “‘The improper admission [of evidence] is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Evans v. State, 30 N.E.3d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011)), trans. den

2016The trial court instructed the State to redact Webb’s comment related to how he “came home” in “Marion County.” Id. [17] During Wilkins’s testimony, the State asked him, “And when you talked to the Defendant the last time, oh, the first time, did he indicate to you that he wanted you to help him like [Jackson] had helped him before?” Id. at 328.

2016However, a Webb analysis is only appropriate "in those instances where the element of duty has not already been declared or otherwise articulated.” Sharp, 790 N.E.2d at 465 ; see also Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d at 1053 ("Where, as in this case, the alleged duty is well-established, there is no need for a new judicial redetermination of duty.”).

2016However, a Webb analysis is only appropriate "in those instances where the element of duty has not already been declared or otherwise articulated.” Sharp, 790 N.E.2d at 465 ; see also Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d at 1053 ("Where, as in this case, the alleged duty is well-established, there is no need for a new judicial redetermination of duty.”).

2016Id. at 324.

2016“Even if the trial court’s decision was an abuse of discretion, we will not reverse if the admission constituted harmless error.” Darringer v. State, 46 N.E.3d 464, 469 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “‘The improper admission [of evidence] is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.’” Evans v. State, 30 N.E.3d 769, 776 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (alteration in original) (quoting Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039, 1059 (Ind. 2011)), trans. den