Hodge v. Nor-Cen, Inc.
Indiana Court of Appeals
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBuchanan, Judge
I must dissent to the portion of the majority opinion which concludes that the trial court erred in granting Nor-Cen summary judgment on the negligence claim. The majority's opinion extends Nor-Cen's legal obligation beyond the pale of reason to protect Appellants [hereinafter Short and Guests].
Even had Nor-Cen been negligent in failing to provide a second means of egress as required by the city ordinance, Short and Guests had the burden to prove not only that the violation was the cause in fact of their injuries, but that Nor-Cen was legally responsible, i.e., that Nor-Cen's violation was…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- Dudley Sports Co. v. SchmittIndiana Court of Appeals · 1972
- Welch v. Railroad Crossing, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1986
- 7735 Hollywood Boulevard Venture v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1981
- Mitchell v. Pearson EnterprisesUtah Supreme Court · 1985
- Crull v. PlattIndiana Court of Appeals · 1984
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.