Tuesday, November 15, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 3 opinion(s) today (and 16 NFP memorandum decision(s))
For publication opinions today (3):
In David D. Wooten v. Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC and Bernard J. Chamernik, a 14-page opinion, Judge Riley writes:
Appellant-Plaintiff, David D. Wooten (Wooten), appeals the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Appellee-Defendant, 1 Bernard J. Chamernik (Chamernik), which concluded, as a matter of law, that Chamernik’s actions fell within the range of ordinary behavior of participants in the sport of golf. We affirm. * * *In In the Matter of the Tr.S. and N.S. (Minor Children) and To.S. (Mother); To.S. (Mother) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services , an 8-page opinion, Judge May writes:
The duty of care owed by participants in athletic events was recently addressed by our supreme court in its pivotal opinion of Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011), which settled Indiana case law’s diverse approaches to liability for sport injuries. * * *
Acknowledging the policy considerations on which Pfenning is grounded, we recognize that encouragement to participate in golf implicitly discourages excessive litigation of claims by persons who suffer injuries from participants’ conduct. The inclusion of golf carts in the sport is “commonly understood” and while an inexact operation of a cart may somewhat “increase the normal risks attendant to the activities of ordinary life outside the sports arena, it does not render unreasonable the ordinary conduct” within the golf game, in the absence of intent or recklessness. See id. at 403. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment in favor of Chamernik.
To.S. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s Order Approving Permanency Plan and On Review Hearing, 1 which suspended parent-child visitation and other reunification services, modified the previous dispositional order, and changed the permanency plan for Mother’s two youngest children, Tr.S. and N.S. (“Children”). She raises two issues on appeal, one of which we find dispositive: whether the trial court’s order modifying the permanency plan is an appealable final order. Because we conclude the order is not an appealable final judgment, we dismiss. * * *In Marco A. Galindo v. State of Indiana, a 15-page opinion, Judge Najam writes:
Because Mother has not followed the proper procedure to seek a discretionary interlocutory appeal, we lack subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, we dismiss. See K.F., 797 N.E.2d at 315 (finding Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction where parents appealed from permanency plan order without proceeding under Indiana Appellate Rule 14).
Marco Galindo appeals his conviction for murder, a felony, following a jury trial. He presents a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter. We affirm. * * *NFP civil decisions today (6):
Galindo kicked or stomped Horsley in the head multiple times and strangled her with extensive and prolonged force. All of the evidence in this case contradicts Galindo’s general denial that he did not knowingly or intentionally kill Horsley. See Erlewein, 775 N.E.2d at 716. Galindo’s contentions on appeal amount to a request that we reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter.
NFP criminal decisions today (10):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 15, 2016 12:10 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions