Gacsy v. Reinhart, 142 N.E.3d 518, 523 (Ind.Ct.App. 2020) (citing Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 965 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), trans. denied), trans. denied.

[13] To prevail in a negligence action, the plaintiff must establish (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) breach of that duty; and (3) injury to the plaintiff resulting from the breach. SeeBriggs v. Finley , 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. A defendant may obtain summary judgment in a negligence action when the undisputed facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff's claim.

It is well established that the owner of an animal has a common law duty to confine it. E.g. , Briggs v. Finley , 631 N.E.2d 959, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). To prevail on a claim of negligent confinement, an injured party must establish that (1) the owner placed the animal in a confinement (2) that he knew or should have known would be ineffective and (3) could reasonably foresee the animal would escape therefrom.Id.

In order to prevail in a negligence action, the Estate had to establish the three elements for actionable negligence: (1) a duty flowing from the Farises to Hager; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) injury to Hager resulting from that breach. Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied.

Because the complaint does not contain notice regarding any alternate claim the Commission might have against NDC, as opposed to NDC's land, NDC cannot be "required to anticipate and defend against such a claim." Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 964 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994). Count II's inclusion of the Mercantile Bank of St. Louis National Association without any distinction between it and Noblesville Development Corporation provides further proof that this count only seeks to foreclose a supposed lien on the property and nothing more.

A court must grant summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (citations omitted). [9] “In a medical negligence claim, the plaintiff must prove by expert testimony not only that the defendant was negligent, but also that the defendant's negligence proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.”

This court has held that "a genuine issue of material fact exists where facts concerning an issue which would dispose of litigation are in dispute or where the undisputed facts are capable of supporting conflicting inferences on such an issue."Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 963 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). The burden of establishing the propriety for summary judgment lies with the movant.

See, e.g., Levinson, 644 N.E.2d at 1269 ("In order to prevail on this theory, the plaintiff must show that the defendant employer negligently retained an employee who the defendant knew was in the habit of misconducting himself." (emphasis added)); Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 966-67 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (stating that an employer may be liable for negligent retention "only if he knows the employee is in the habit of misconducting himself in a manner dangerous to others" (emphasis added)). Other decisions, however, state that an employer may be liable if it merely should have known or had reason to know of the misconduct.

Republic argues that Coomes' negligent retention claim cannot survive because "[l]iability for negligent retention only arises where the employee's conduct creates an unreasonable risk of bodily harm or is in a manner dangerous to others." (Filing No. 56 at 18 (citing Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994)).)

Under the principle of negligent retention, an employer may be liable for retaining an employee only if it knows the employee has a habit of misconduct that is dangerous to others. Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959, 966-67 (Ind. App. Ct. 1994).