A New York City jury found Wednesday that a flawed General Motors ignition switch was not to blame in a 2014 accident on an icy New Orleans bridge, handing the carmaker its second victory in a row in trials meant to help lawyers settle dozens of similar claims.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a decision that denied HealthPort’s motion for judgment against Garrison Law Firm LLC after it found Garrison did not have a private cause of action under Indiana law or Administrative Code.
The judge overseeing lawsuits against General Motors Co. over a lethal ignition-switch defect denied a bid to remove the lead attorney for the injury and death cases, telling the lawyers to stop arguing with each other.
An Oklahoma man suing General Motors Co. in the first trial over a deadly ignition switch flaw lied to the jury about his family’s eviction from its “dream house” after he committed fraud against a real estate agent, the company says.
General Motors Co. found a deadly flaw in its ignition switches but chose to keep customers and regulators in the dark for years, a lawyer for an injured postal carrier told jurors in the first trial over the defect.
The car maker, which faces at least 16 trials on death and injury claims in state and federal courts in the U.S. in 2016, has said in regulatory filings that it couldn’t estimate its potential liability.
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a jury ruling in favor of a motorcyclist who collided with a moped driver trying to seek shelter before a rainstorm and ordered a new trial.
A federal inmate who cut his forearm on a jagged bed frame won a $10,000 judgment in his lawsuit against the United States.
Imagine a robot car with no one behind the wheel hitting another driverless car. Who’s at fault?
The next wave of hobby drones will be wrapped in boxes underneath Christmas trees before they fill the skies. If industry sales projections come true, the holiday season will put tens of thousands of relative novices at the controls of small unmanned aerial vehicles in densely populated cities and suburbs. All that amateurish swooping over houses and cars, spooking pets and dodging humans, will invariably lead to cracked windows and more than a few bloody injuries.
Because there was evidence that a defendant’s mental state at the time he stabbed his estranged wife was due to voluntary intoxication, the jury properly rejected his insanity defense, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Thursday.
An Indiana man is facing misdemeanor charges after his pit bulls mauled and seriously injured two young women.
A trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of hotel defendants on a negligence claim arising after a guest slipped, fell and was injured in a parking lot covered by a dusting of snow.
An attempt to revive old constitutional arguments against Indiana’s guest statute failed to gain traction with the Indiana Court of Appeals.
An Indianapolis trial court abused its discretion by ordering a man convicted in a physical altercation with police to pay more than $27,000 in restitution despite a lack of evidence he caused injuries that resulted in those medical bills.
A man who failed to produce an expert witness to link his respiratory ailment to a mishap at an amusement park will not be able to continue with his negligence claim.
The Indiana Court of Appeals split over the extent of governmental immunity after a woman who broke her leg crossing the street sued the city of Beech Grove for negligence.
A Department of Correction inmate who sued several government employees after he was injured when he fell out of a pickup truck lost his appeal before the Indiana Court of Appeals Thursday.
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the admission of a couple’s uninsured motorist policy limits at a trial in which the couple sued its insurer to recover under that provision. But in doing so, the justices declined requests by the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association and the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana to adopt a bright-line rule on the admission of coverage limits.
A split Indiana Court of Appeals found that affidavits from an injured man’s family members as to his mental competency were not sufficient to overcome his failure to file a complaint before the statute of limitations had expired.