Henderson v. Reid Hospital & Healthcare Services - 7/15/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Tuesday  July 15, 2014 
1:30 PM  EST

1:30 p.m. 89A04-1311-CT-550. This case involves an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Reid Hospital and Healthcare Services in a case brought by Lori Henderson for injuries sustained when she fell on snow and ice in the Hospital's parking lot. Henderson contends that the trial court erred because material issues of fact exist and summary judgment was improperly granted. Specifically, Henderson argues that issues of fact exist as to whether the Hospital had sufficient opportunity to learn of the ice accumulation and rid the parking lot of the risk. She claims that the trial court incorrectly held that the Hospital did not have a duty to her, as an invitee, to remove the snow or ice until the precipitation had ceased and that controlling authority in Indiana, which adopted a reasonableness standard for determining whether a landowner exercised ordinary care in removing the natural accumulation of ice and snow on the premises, does not require the weather event at issue to cease before a landowner has a duty to an invitee to exercise reasonable care to remove the snow or ice.

Back to Events
Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT