The case history here is extensive, but the crux of the Indiana Court of Appeals’ decision in the defendants’ favor was that plaintiffs failed to prove defendant property owner could have reasonably foreseen the possibility of a food truck blowing up on-site. At first glance, that seems a reasonable position. However, it turns out there have been a number of serious – and even deadly – food truck explosions across the U.S. in recent years.

In June 2014 – a year almost to the day of the Indiana food truck explosion – a propane tank on a food truck in Philadelphia exploded while customers were being served. Local news reports indicated that the force of the blast sent the metal tank 50 feet into a nearby backyard and flames shooting up 200 feet into the air. As a result of that incident, a 42-year-old woman and her 17-year-old daughter who were inside the truck, were killed after suffering major burns across much of their bodies. Three bystanders – including a little girl – also sustained serious burns and others were hit by debris. An investigation later revealed the 70-year-old propane tank was improperly filled, resulting in a gas leak and ultimately the explosion.more

The case resulted in $160 million pre-trial settlement (believed to be one of the biggest, if not the biggest), as well as new safety standards for checking and maintaining propane tanks.

Then just last month in Portland, Oregon, a food truck explosion early on a Sunday morning destroyed not only the truck but damaged three nearby buildings. No one was in or around the truck at the time, so thankfully no one was hurt. The cause is still under investigation, but officials suspect a malfunctioning gas line.

In the case recently before the Indiana Court of Appeals, the auto salvage business where the explosion occurred occasionally has flammable materials on site. This includes items left in a vehicle that was repossessed without warning or brought in after a crash, when previous owners didn’t have time to remove all personal items. The food truck operator had a “handshake deal” first established with the previous owner of the salvage yard to sell tacos from his truck on the property, paying $25-a-day to the salvage yard. The salvage yard owners never asked whether the taco truck operator was licensed to sell food or whether safety procedures were in place for use of the propane tank necessary to operate the food truck. Managers said they were not aware of any previous incidents involving fires, explosions or other dangerous conditions created by a food truck on its premises at any time prior to this incident.

Court records indicate the food truck suddenly exploded and caught fire, which fire officials and the health department later determined was caused by ignition of gas fumes from an open cooking flame. An employee of the food truck company was deemed responsible for the explosion when he opened a can of gasoline too close to the grill when trying to refill a generator.

Plaintiff, a customer who was injured in the explosion, sued the auto salvage yard and the taco truck company. Against the food truck owner, he alleged negligence in handling of combustible fuels, selling food without a license, failing to train workers and failing to inspect its truck and equipment. The auto salvage yard, he alleged, was liable for failing to monitor or inspect the truck company’s vehicle or equipment, failing to ensure the vendor had a license and failing to study proper food truck safety procedures. He also alleged the salvage yard was vicariously liable for the taco truck’s negligence because the two were operating as a joint venture. Our Gary personal injury attorneys note such liability is often assigned to employers.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the auto salvage yard. Plaintiff argued on appeal that because of the nature of the salvage yard’s business, a gas explosion on site was foreseeable, and that if the company had taken proper precautions to inspect the food truck, the explosion would not have happened.

The majority in the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that while it was the stove in the truck that caught fire, the injuries that occurred were the result of the food truck operator’s negligence. Thus, the court held the explosion was not foreseeable and the salvage yard not liable.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

German A. Linares v. El Tacarajo and U-Pull-And-Pay, LLC d/b/a Pic A Part, Feb. 8, 2019, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries:

Indiana Drunk Driving Injury Lawsuit Verdict of $21 Million Affirmed, Nov. 8, 2018, Indiana Personal Injury Attorney Blog

If you are an employee injured at work, your exclusive remedy against your employer is usually workers’ compensation, outlined in IC 22-3-2 through IC 22-2-6, which gives you just 30 days to submit notice to your employer and 2 years in which to formally file a claim for benefits. This assumes, of course, that you are actually an employee and not an independent contractor (a designation on which your employer doesn’t have the last say and which is often legally disputed). It also assumes your injury occurred in the course of and arose out of the scope of your employment. Workers’ compensation is meant to cover all related and reasonable medical expenses, a portion of lost wages, funeral expenses and other benefits, depending on the circumstances. However, securing full benefits to which you are entitled is often a challenge. In some cases, workers may have grounds to pursue a personal injury lawsuit for third-party liability if someone other than an employer or coworker was at-fault. An experienced work injury lawyer in Gary can best help protect your rights following a serious on-the-job injury.

The Indiana Department of Labor reports the most hazardous industries in the state for work injuries include agriculture and forestry, healthcare and social assistance, manufacturing, waste management, transportation and warehousing, arts/recreation/entertainment, accommodation and food service. more

Just recently in Elkhart, Indiana, a flash fire at an RV product manufacturing plant caused a worker to suffer serious burns while he was mixing chemicals. The incident was described by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration as a chemical fire.

A report published last fall by NWI.com revealed heavily industrialized workplaces in Indiana – including steel mills, factors and refineries – are getting safer. Historically, these were work sites where employees routinely were crushed, pinned, electrocuted, struck or suffered burns. Injuries sustained by workers in steelmaking, for instance, historically one of the most dangerous professions, fell from 1.81 per 1 million to 1.39 percent per 1 million. More than 10,000 workers are employed by steel mills in Northwest Indiana. Employers and workers say that years ago workplace safety was nothing more than a slogan. Now, it’s something practiced every day. Local labor unions credit new policies, such as allowing workers the right to refuse work they believe is too dangerous or have reason to believe will expose them to carcinogens. Federal law also now requires that companies tell workers what chemicals they’ll be exposed to on the job. Workers say one of the biggest causes is less fear that they’ll be retaliated against if they report unsafe conditions. Today, they say, a reported safety concern can result in operations being shut down entirely until it’s been established that it’s safe to proceed.

While all this may be good news, an injured employee will not have to prove negligence or fault to obtain workers’ compensation benefits, which are defined no-fault benefits under Indiana law. While fault or negligence may be an issue in a third-party liability claim, securing proper workers’ compensation benefits requires focus on quality of care, extent of injuries or disabilities, and long-term prospects in the workforce. The fact is, all workplaces have the potential to be dangerous.

Workplace falls remain a top cause of injury. Last year, NBC affiliate WTHR-13 reported a widow’s lament that she was unable to sue her husband’s employer after a fatal workplace fall from a ladder in an empty concrete pool inside a hotel in Marion. The employer was cited by OSHA for failure to maintain work conditions that were reasonably safe and free from recognized hazards that could seriously injure or kill. The fine of $4,800 was later negotiated down to $2,400, which many contend gives workplaces little incentive to improve employee safety. His widow said the employer should be made to pay for negligence resulting in the death of her husband of 18 years. But the workers’ compensation exclusive remedy provision prevented it. What she can do, as our Gary, Indiana injury attorneys can explain, is file for workers’ compensation death benefits, which will pay surviving spouses and/or dependents two-thirds the decedent’s salary for 10 years, plus burial costs and any medical expenses incurred because of the accident.

Personal injury lawyers know that because Indiana workers’ compensation does not cover all losses, it’s important to look at any potential third-party liability.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

2016 Indiana Non-Fatal Injuries and Illnesses, Indiana Department of Labor

More Blog Entries:

Indiana Work Injury Compensation for Under-the-Table Laborers, Sept. 4, 2018, Gary, Indiana Work Injury Attorney Blog

Bird electric scooter-share’s dockless scooter service in Indianapolis launched in the spring along Mass Ave. and also in Irvington, relying on smartphone apps to track and bill users. Licensed adult locals and visitors alike have been making use of them for leisurely downtown tours in Fountain Square or City Market or a breezy ride along nearby bike paths like Pennsy Trail, though Bird scooters are actually advertised to those needing a boost on that “last mile” of their trek or short commute when it’s slightly too long to comfortably walk. They were so popular, the Indianapolis scooter market got competitive when Lime (formerly LimeBike, now in 50 cities globally) launched its Indianapolis scooter share, pricing itself low and muscling its way in to the Hoosier market.

Our injury attorneys in Gary and Munster (who also serve Indianapolis) see the biggest safety fear centering on the fact that scooters are going to be interacting with often crowded downtown traffic. Riders are instructed to use the bicycle lane (staying off sidewalks and roads) and park well clear of public roads (a directive users aren’t strict about following). All this puts riders at risk of an Indiana scooter crash.

There has already been at least one Indianapolis scooter crash involving a serious injury. The Indy Channel reports a 21-year-old was on his way to work after renting a scooter, when he struck a pot hole (he says he didn’t notice it until it was too late), slammed on the brake and was launched face-first onto the pavement. He broke his nose, required 15 stitches, and is likely to need plastic surgery. His mother said he wasn’t wearing a helmet. While the services offer helmets free to those who request them, reporters stated the process for getting one wasn’t entirely clear. The company has said it encourages helmet use. Based on what we know of collisions involving other vulnerable road users like bicyclists and pedestrians, those on scooters would be wise to follow these suggestions.

Other Midwestern and a few Southern towns have experienced some growing pains in trying to incorporate scooters into their urban traffic landscape. Nashville, for instance, issued a cease-and-desist letter to Bird, which temporarily removed some 400 scooters in service amid safety concerns that the rides were being dangerously parked in doorways and on ramps and sidewalks. The company is in talks with the city about establishing ground rules and regulations.

Bird electric scooter owners say they want to have a positive working relationship with the city and other nearby businesses, advertising a “Save our Sidewalks” pledge to help avoid scooters parked on the walkway. The company also has said it won’t invest in adding more scooters in rotation until they reach the point every scooter is getting at least three rides daily (or equivalent). Users can also earn a bit of extra cash as Bird “chargers,” rounding up scooters set aside by users at random sites.

There are a host of similarities between Lime and Bird (mostly marketing a few price differentials and a couple unique special features). Lime says it “encourages” users to obey traffic laws, avoid the sidewalks, pay attention, wear a helmet and park somewhere reasonable to avoid public annoyance or city official ire.

If you are injured in a scooter accident in Indianapolis or elsewhere in Indiana, our dedicated personal injury lawyers in Gary are committed to helping.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond.

Additional Resources:

Another electric scooter service arrives in Indianapolis, Aug. 30, 2018, By Ethan May, The Indianapolis Star

‘More Blog Entries:

Indiana Uninsured Motorist Claim Must Prove No Insurance for At-Fault Driver OR Vehicle, Aug. 23, 2018, Indianapolis Crash Injury Attorney Blog

This was exactly what occurred in a recent Gary injury lawsuit considered by the Indiana Court of Appeals. The case involved a grocery store injury at the store involving a defective shopping cart.

The appellate court records don’t spell out many details from the original complaint, except that the plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of using a malfunctioning shopping cart at the store. She filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, alleging they were liable for her injuries on the basis of premises liability.

The claim was filed in August 2013. (The statute of limitations on Indiana personal injury lawsuits is two years, per I.C. 34-11-2-4(1).)

The summons for the complaint was addressed to the “highest executive officer found on site” and was served by the local sheriff’s department at the store, and it was also mailed via certified mail – with return receipt requested – to the site. The sergeant who delivered the summons received the return receipt, although it was noted the signature was illegible.

About six months later, after having received no answer to the complaint, the plaintiff sought entry of a default judgment – which the court granted three months later, with a damages hearing two months after that, awarding $500,000 to the plaintiff for her injuries.

Courts do not generally favor default judgments because the theory is the best outcomes occur when both sides have a chance to adequately represent themselves and present their respective cases. However, appellate courts will usually only reverse a default judgment if there is evidence of some procedural error or a legitimate reason why the person failed to timely answer or appear. The system can’t wait around forever for litigants to participate.

In this case, following the default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed a motion to enforce, and it was only after this point that an attorney representing the grocery store appeared in court and filed a motion to set aside the default judgment. He argued the default judgment was void under state trial rules for lack of personal jurisdiction, based on numerous defects in the service of the summons. Furthermore, he alleged the failure to respond was the result of excusable neglect.

The trial court denied the defense motion to set aside the judgment, and the defendant appealed.

The appellate court cited previous case law and noted default judgment is an extreme remedy available only when a party fails to defend or prosecute a case. In general, motions to set aside are reviewed for a trial court’s abuse of discretion.

Proper service of a lawsuit is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which requires constructive notice of the lawsuit be sufficient. That means the serving party must exercise due diligence in locating the litigant’s whereabouts. In this case, the summons was delivered by a sergeant who worked as a process server for six years and served hundreds of subpoenas. The store claimed it never received a summons – either as delivered by the sergeant or by certified mail. The court found the sergeant followed the letter of state trial rules, as evidenced by the copy of the summons with a stamp indicating it had been delivered, as well as the return receipt. Therefore, the appeals court said it couldn’t say the trial court abused its discretion in denying the store’s motion to set aside.

The $500,000 Gary personal injury judgment will stand.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Menard, Inc. v. Lane, Feb. 1, 2017, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: Indiana Woman Injured in Fall Gets New Shot at Trial, March 2, 2017, Indiana Personal Injury Attorney Blog