Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe NowIndiana Court of Appeals
Mahari Mrach Oukbu and Nitsihiti Abraham v. Amazon, et. al.
24A-CT-254
Civil tort. Reverses the Hamilton Superior Court’s granting of judgment for Amazon and its conclusion that Amazon did not owe Mahari Oukbu a duty under Indiana law. Finds Oukbu’s complaint was sufficient to demonstrate that Amazon owed a duty of reasonable care to Oukbu, and that Amazon’s actions—or inactions—created a condition that made passage unsafe on the abutting public road. Also finds that the trial court erred in granting Amazon’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Judge Paul Mathias concurs with a separate opinion.
Harjit Kaur, Individually, and as the Special Administrator of the Estate of Harvail Singh Dhillon, Deceased v. Amazon, Inc., et al.
23A-CT-2059
Civil tort. Reverses the Hamilton Superior Court’s granting of Amazon’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 12(C) that argued that the Estate of Harvail Singh Dhillon’s allegations failed to establish that Amazon owed a duty to Dhillon and that any negligence on Amazon’s part was not the proximate cause of Dhillon’s death. Finds the estate’s complaint was sufficient to demonstrate that Amazon owed a duty of reasonable care to Dhillon, and that Amazon’s actions—or inactions—created a condition that made passage unsafe on the abutting public road. Also finds the trial court erred in granting Amazon’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. Remands to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
P.J. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development
24A-EX-659
Administrative. Affirms the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development’s finding that P.J. was ineligible for unemployment benefits, because his employment had been terminated for just cause and also the board’s dismissal of P.J.’s appeal. Finds P.J. cites no clear authority establishing the motions panel erred and the appellate court also finds none. Judge Elizabeth Tavitas concurs in part and concurs in result in part with opinion.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.