Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Wiles v. Mahan

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 16, 1980No. 1-1079A276Published

1ConcurrenceRatliff, Judge

I concur generally in Judge Robertson’s opinion in this case. However, I wish to address specially two issues, raised by the Appellant Wiles which issues are the subject of Judge Young’s dissenting opinion.

Wiles contends that Mahan’s tendered instruction number 2, given by the trial court, constitutes reversible error. This instruction stated:

“I instruct you ladies and gentlemen of the jury, that a storekeeper must use ordinary care to keep premises in a reasonably safe condition for the customers. Ordinary care, as applied to storekeepers, is that degree of care usually exercised by ordinary…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Walters v. Kellam & Foley, Mussett, Nicholas & Stevenson, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Gilbert v. Stone City Const. Co., Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1976
  3. Deckard v. AdamsIndiana Supreme Court · 1965
  4. Scoopmire v. TaflingerIndiana Court of Appeals · 1944
  5. Childs v. RayburnIndiana Court of Appeals · 1976

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API