Supreme Court grants 2 transfers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted two transfers this week to cases involving a negligence claim against a grocery store and subordinated judgment liens.

In The Kroger Co. v. Lu Ann B. Plonski, No. 49A02-0807-CV-610, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Kroger's motion for summary judgment in Lu Ann Plonski's negligence claim. Given the Indiana Supreme Court's holding in Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003), the appellate court determined there was no need for a judicial re-determination of duty in the instant case. Kroger's duty was sufficiently established by evidence Plonski, a patron of the store, was assaulted in the store's parking lot as she was leaving. Kroger argued it didn't have a duty to protect her from a criminal act of a third party who was not a guest or patron of the store; that even if it had a duty to Plonski, it didn't breach that duty; and that it wasn't the proximate cause of her injuries.

In Gina Johnson v. Robert Johnson, No. 46A04-0810-CV-570, the Court of Appeals affirmed the order granting Robert Johnson's motion to have Gina Johnson's judgment lien subordinated. The appellate court ruled the trial court's order didn't constitute a modification. The line of credit at the bank existed at the time the parties filed the settlement agreement, so Gina's judgment lien was subordinate to the bank's. The parties also failed to address her lien or its priority, if any, over the other liens in the settlement agreement.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit