OK lawyers, have fun

[Marvin the Martian]

A student was sitting in Swain Hall when a glass window fell on them. They were rushed to the ER. A couple of years later, they sued IU. The Monroe Circuit threw it out, saying there was no evidence that IU was negligent. The Appeals Court remanded it back citing Latin, because saying something in Latin always makes it legal. dicens latine facit id legale. Or maybe they said, "res ipsa loquitur in premises".

Massa wrote that when direct evidence of negligence is not available, plaintiffs can rely on the circumstantial evidence of res ipsa loquitur. Though the inference doesn’t secure a finding of negligence, it’s enough for a plaintiff to survive summary judgment.​

The 2 said that since no evidence of negligence has been provided, the lawsuit should be dismissed.
OK, shocker to everyone here, I'm not a lawyer. What do the pros think of this case? It sounds interesting to me, it seems that in entering a building, one has a right to be in one should expect a window not to fall on them randomly. I mean a tornado or earthquake, sure. On the other hand, was there any reason for IU to suspect the window could fall? Was there any reasonable maintenance that should have caught the problem? How often should building owners climb ladders and check windows?

Split Indiana Supreme Court reverses lower court ruling in case of IU student injured by falling window - The Indiana Lawyer

An Indiana University student injured in 2018 by a falling window demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact in inferring that the university's negligence, a split Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

www.theindianalawyer.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

A student was sitting in Swain Hall when a glass window fell on them. They were rushed to the ER. A couple of years later, they sued IU. The Monroe Circuit threw it out, saying there was no evidence that IU was negligent. The Appeals Court remanded it back citing Latin, because saying something in Latin always makes it legal. dicens latine facit id legale. Or maybe they said, "res ipsa loquitur in premises".

Massa wrote that when direct evidence of negligence is not available, plaintiffs can rely on the circumstantial evidence of res ipsa loquitur. Though the inference doesn’t secure a finding of negligence, it’s enough for a plaintiff to survive summary judgment.​

The 2 said that since no evidence of negligence has been provided, the lawsuit should be dismissed.
OK, shocker to everyone here, I'm not a lawyer. What do the pros think of this case? It sounds interesting to me, it seems that in entering a building, one has a right to be in one should expect a window not to fall on them randomly. I mean a tornado or earthquake, sure. On the other hand, was there any reason for IU to suspect the window could fall? Was there any reasonable maintenance that should have caught the problem? How often should building owners climb ladders and check windows?

Split Indiana Supreme Court reverses lower court ruling in case of IU student injured by falling window - The Indiana Lawyer

An Indiana University student injured in 2018 by a falling window demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact in inferring that the university's negligence, a split Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

www.theindianalawyer.com

99 out of 100 cases would have settled without need to file unless the kid was seeking an insane amount of money. i'm shocked this was a fight. send demands to the school, the window installation company, the window manufacturer. glass windows don't fall on their own

i had a case where a guy walked through a glass window at bdubs. thought it was the door. not paying attention. they used the wrong kind of glass. destroyed his face. multiple surgeries. hundreds and hundreds of stitches

 

[BradStevens]

Not an IN lawyer, but you ask the right questions. I think the appellate court got it right (and can't believe the trial court ruled that way) and it should survive directed verdict too. That's enough to go to a jury. Let IU disprove they were negligent.

 

[TMFT]

99 out of 100 cases would have settled without need to file unless the kid was seeking an insane amount of money. i'm shocked this was a fight. send demands to the school, the window installation company, the window manufacturer. glass windows don't fall on their own

i had a case where a guy walked through a glass window at bdubs. thought it was the door. not paying attention. they used the wrong kind of glass. destroyed his face. multiple surgeries. hundreds and hundreds of stitches

The only thing I'd add to your analysis is that this kind of case would also involve the Indiana Tort Claims Act, which does not lend itself very often to pre-suit settlement.

Typically, a TCA case will turn on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff as a bar, but that doesn't seem to be alleged here.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The only thing I'd add to your analysis is that this kind of case would also involve the Indiana Tort Claims Act, which does not lend itself very often to pre-suit settlement.

Typically, a TCA case will turn on the contributory negligence of the plaintiff as a bar, but that doesn't seem to be alleged here.

ahhhhhh yuck the state.