Wilkerson v. Harvey

17 Citing cases

  1. Estate of Knox v. Wheeler

    Cause No. 2:05-CV-19-PRC (N.D. Ind. Jul. 27, 2006)

    In Indiana, "[a]ll operators of motor vehicles have a general duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists." Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Lamb, 361 N.E.2d 174, 180 (Ind.Ct.App. 1977)). This duty requires that the motorist "use due care at the time and place in question and act as a reasonable and prudent person would act under the same or like circumstances."

  2. Wright v. Dobbins

    186 N.E.3d 613 (Ind. App. 2022)

    [17] Wright and Dobbins agree that Dobbins had a duty to "use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists." Romero v. Brady , 5 N.E.3d 1166, 1168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Wilkerson v. Harvey , 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) ; Cole v. Gohmann , 727 N.E.2d 1111, 1115 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) ). This duty did not require Dobbins, as the driver on the preferred road, to be constantly aware of the actions of non-preferred drivers in plain view, like Bracken.

  3. Marten Transp., Ltd. v. Lucas

    Court of Appeals Case No. 45A03-1612-CT-2937 (Ind. App. Aug. 16, 2017)

    [24] Waiver notwithstanding, Appellants' argument is unavailing. Appellants do not dispute that Hurst had a duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists. See Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) ("All operators of motor vehicles have a general duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists."), trans. denied (2005).

  4. Kovera v. Envirite of Ill., Inc.

    2015 Ill. App. 133049 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015)   Cited 20 times

    Under Indiana law, “[t]o prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff is required to prove: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach.” Ford Motor Co. v. Rushford, 868 N.E.2d 806, 810 (Ind.2007) (citing Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 232 (Ind.1999) ). “All operators of motor vehicles have a general duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists.” Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (citing Allied Fidelity Insurance Co. v. Lamb, 361 N.E.2d 174, 180 (Ind.Ct.App.1977) ). Additionally, “a motorist is charged with the duty of exercising ordinary care to observe dangers and obstructions and is chargeable with notice of obstructions that a person of ordinary prudence would reasonably be expected to observe.” Wilkerson, 814 N.E.2d at 693 (citing Smith v. Beaty, 639 N.E.2d 1029, 1033 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) ).

  5. McDonald v. Lattire

    844 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 25 times
    Rejecting nonmovant's attempt to piggyback movant's designation and rely on portions not specifically designated and indicating that nonmovant was precluded from relying on mere allegations in complaint that "are not testimony, affidavits, sworn statements, or evidence of any kind"

    Appellant's Br. at 6-7. For support, she cites, inter alia, Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004), trans. denied,Cole v. Gohmann, 727 N.E.2d 1111, 1115 (Ind.Ct.App. 2000),Smith v. Beaty, 639 N.E.2d 1029 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994), and Indiana Department of Highways v. Naumann, 577 N.E.2d 994 (Ind.Ct.App. 1991).

  6. Davidsen v. Buschert

    1:21-CV-374-HAB (N.D. Ind. Aug. 16, 2023)

    Parker v. Penn. Co., 34 N.E. 504, 506 (Ind. 1893); see also Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (describing the duty to maintain a proper lookout as the “duty of exercising ordinary care”), Schultz v. Hodus, 535 N.E.2d 1235. 1237-38 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989).

  7. Dineen v. Oliver

    No. 16 C 7015 (N.D. Ill. May. 14, 2018)

    This is likely because Indiana courts have made clear that "[a]ll operators of motor vehicles have a general duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists." Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004); see also Romero v. Brady, 5 N.E.3d 1166, 1168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) ("[T]he duty owed by motorists to fellow motorists is well-established."). Given that general duty, the issue turns to the remaining elements of a negligence claim: breach and causation.

  8. Hensel v. United States

    Case No. 1:15-CV-036 JD (N.D. Ind. Feb. 23, 2017)

    A motorist is not, however, required to anticipate extraordinary hazards nor to constantly expect or search for unusual dangers. Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 691 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). Pedestrians must exercise due care as well. A pedestrian has a statutory duty to "yield the right-of-way to all vehicles upon the roadway."

  9. Allen v. U.S.

    Cause No. 2:04-cv-505-prc (N.D. Ind. Oct. 27, 2006)

    In Indiana, "[a]ll operators of motor vehicles have a general duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries to other motorists." Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686, 693 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (citing Allied Fidelity Ins. Co. v. Lamb, 361 N.E.2d 174, 180 (Ind.Ct.App. 1977)). Indiana Code § 9-21-4-18 provides that a person who drives a vehicle must obey the markings or signs posted under this chapter.

  10. Wilkerson v. Harvey

    831 N.E.2d 738 (Ind. 2005)

    March 3, 2005. Reported below: 814 N.E.2d 686. Transfer denied.