Indiana Personal Injury Law

This page examines settlement amounts and jury payouts in Indiana personal injury cases. Our lawyers also provide an analysis of Indiana personal injury law.

If you are a personal injury victim bringing a compensation claim in Indiana, it is only natural to want to know how much your case might be worth. Monetary compensation is what a personal injury or wrongful death case is ultimately about.

This page is designed to examine how personal injury cases have been resolved in Indiana and to allow you to match your claim with Indiana personal injury settlement statistics, example settlements, and jury payouts.

If you have a sex abuse case in California, contact us today.

Indiana Personal Injury Statistics

Indiana juries are likelier to issue a plaintiffs’ verdict, at least according to a Jury Verdict Research report that found that plaintiffs win damages in 57% of Indiana jury trials. The median money award for personal injury trials in Indiana is $25,036.

The Indiana comparisons to the national data are interesting: plaintiffs receive damages in 48% of cases that go to trial. So Indiana is more likely to find for the plaintiff. But they award less: the national median is $40,000. (Remember, this is a median, not an average, which excludes, by definition, large verdicts.)

Statistics mislead – there are a thousand clichés to prove it, especially older statistics like these. Interstate comparisons are even more challenging because they are based on results created by different variables.

States with higher thresholds to get a jury trial in the first place should, on average, be higher. But these statistics are still interesting.

Personal Injury Statute of Limitations in Indiana

In Indiana, the statute of limitations for most personal injury cases is two years from the date the cause of action accrues, typically the date of the accident or injury. This time limit applies to the majority of personal injury claims, including those involving auto accidents, slip and fall incidents, and product liability claims. Failing to file a lawsuit within this statutory period will usually result in dismissal, as courts are barred from hearing the case once the deadline passes.

There are important exceptions to this rule. For example, under Indiana law, the two-year statute of limitations is tolled for individuals who are legally incapacitated, such as minors. This is codified in Indiana Code § 34-11-6-1, which delays the start of the limitations period until the minor reaches the age of 18.

Special Rules for Child Sexual Abuse Lawsuits

Indiana recently extended the time survivors of childhood sexual abuse have to file civil lawsuits. According to the revised statute under Indiana Code § 34-11-2-9.5, a civil action seeking damages for personal injuries resulting from child sexual abuse must be initiated within whichever of the following periods is later:

• Within seven (7) years from the date the cause of action accrues; or
• Within four (4) years after the plaintiff is no longer dependent on the alleged perpetrator for care, custody, or support.

These provisions recognize the unique psychological impact of childhood abuse and the reality that many victims are not emotionally or financially able to come forward until adulthood. This change in the law was a critical step toward making justice more accessible to survivors.

Courts in Indiana have consistently interpreted these limitations strictly. For example, the Indiana Court of Appeals emphasized that statutes of limitation exist to encourage prompt resolution and ensure fairness to defendants.

But in cases involving delayed discovery—such as child sex abuse—the courts have allowed claims to proceed under special statutory rules like § 34-11-2-9.5.

Indiana Verdicts & Settlements

• $42,500,000 Verdict (2024 Lake County): A Tesla employee made a left turn across double yellow lines into an adjoining lot of a gas station to circumvent a long queue while running late for work. This was an awful crash – the 37-year-old victim sustained brain injuries that reduced his mental capacity to that of a 10-year-old and led to the amputation of part of his foot.  Tesla’s defense lawyers argued that the turn made by its employee was not uncommon, suggesting that such incidents were tragic accidents that could happen to any motorist. They contended that the specific circumstances, including the motorcyclist’s lack of a helmet and his acceleration before the crash, contributed to the accident. The jury did not buy it and awarded the motorcyclist $42.5 million in damages. The jury actually found that the motorcyclist was 30% at fault, adjusting the verdict from $60.7 million under Indiana’s comparative negligence law.
• $2,670,000 Verdict (2023 Allen County): A 51-year-old woman underwent a cardiac catheterization procedure during which a MynxGrip device was used. Following the surgery, she developed compartment syndrome in her right calf, leading to muscle atrophy, ischemia, deformity, and right foot drop. She required a skin graft from her left leg, resulting in disfigurement in both legs. She filed a medical malpractice lawsuit accusing her doctor of medical negligence for not obtaining informed consent about the use of the MynxGrip device on her femoral artery, improper use of the device during the procedure by injecting PEG sealant into the artery, and providing inadequate post-operative care. A $2.6 million jury award was reduced the cap to $1.25 million.
• $25,000 Verdict (2023 Lake County): The plaintiff allegedly suffered a herniation at C6-C7, an acute cervical strain, and low back pain that radiated into his hips when he was rear-ended by the defendant while stopped at a red light for an intersection.
• $270,790 Settlement (2023 Marion County): Wrongful death from pulmonary embolism allegedly resulted from negligent care by two doctors and a health center group. The settlement was with the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund for excess damages following a wrongful death settlement with the negligent healthcare providers.
• $25,000 Verdict (2022 Lake County): The plaintiff, a 55-year-old police officer, claimed that he suffered disc damage in his lower back, resulting in radiating pain into his leg, left shoulder impingement, left hip pain, and right knee sprain when his vehicle was struck by an underinsured driver. He settled for policy limits with the at-fault driver and then pursued UIM damages from his owner insurer.
• $300,000 Settlement (2022 Lake County): A 31-year-old female alleged that the defendant (a radiation oncologist) negligently administered radiotherapy treatment by exposing her to excess levels of radiation. Plaintiff alleged that she suffered vaginal and rectal necrosis from the tradition causing her chronic pain. Case settled for $300,000.
• $100,000 Verdict (2022 Marion County): Plaintiff, a police officer, was stopped at a red light in his police cruiser when he was rear-ended by the defendant. Plaintiff alleged various soft tissue injuries and claimed medical expenses plus lost wages from being out of work. The case went to trial on damages only and the jury awarded $100,000.
• $2,100,000 Verdict (2021 Lake County): The infant suffered the loss of oxygen from failure to diagnose and timely respond to the nuchal cord being wrapped tightly around his neck. As a result, the infant suffered a major brain injury resulting in permanent loss of cognitive and physical abilities.
• $14,000 Settlement (2021 Marion County): A 5-year-old boy claimed that he was a guest on the premises of the defendant, a public elementary school, when he slipped and fell on a wet bathroom floor and sustained various injuries.
• $750,000 Verdict (2021 Cass County): A 74-year-old man was undergoing elbow surgery when the defendant, a nurse, attempted to intubate him and provide anesthesia for the surgery. During the intubation, the defendant allegedly damaged the plaintiff’s airway, resulting in a myocardial infarction.
• $125,000 Verdict (2021 Delaware County): The plaintiff was traveling on a road in Delaware County when the defendant failed to yield while making a left turn, causing a collision. The plaintiff alleged extensive soft-tissue injuries and the jury awarded $125,000, which was reduced to $82,000 based on the plaintiff’s comparative negligence.
• $129,000 Verdict (2020 Cass County): A man helped his long-time friend clear dead trees on his property. He used a chainsaw, while his friend kept a lookout. As he cut an enormous tree, a dead limb struck his head, causing significant injury. The man sued his friend for failing to keep a proper lookout and not warning him once the limb fell. He claimed that they agreed that his friend would keep a lookout and that his friend knew of the hazards. His friend contended that the situation was unavoidable, and the man assumed the injury risk. The jury returned a mixed verdict, based on comparative fault. They awarded $129,000. The court entered a consistent judgment of $64,500.
• $14,086 Verdict (2020 Lake County): A 30-year-old man’s Kia Spectra was rear-ended by another driver’s Honda Accord. Its impact pushed the man’s Kia Spectra into the Toyota Prius in front of him. The man suffered soft-tissue back, hip, wrist, and neck injuries. He underwent chiropractic treatment, which appeared to have resolved his pain. However, he claimed that his back would sometimes lock up months after his treatment ended. He sued the Honda Accord’s driver for failing to stop in time. The jury awarded the man $14,086.

Indiana Personal Injury Law

Let’s dig into the important rules in Indiana personal injury law.

Discovery Rule

The discovery rule stipulates that the statute of limitations commences not at the time of the offending act, but when the plaintiff becomes aware or could have become aware through reasonable diligence, that they have suffered harm due to tortious conduct. So under the discovery rule in Indiana, the statute of limitations starts to count only when the plaintiff becomes aware, or with reasonable diligence should become aware, of the wrongful act.

Of course, reasonable diligence is a battlefield in these cases.  The cause of action doesn’t require full knowledge or determination of the entire extent of the damage, but merely that some discernible harm has taken place. The expected level of diligence equates to an expectation that an injured party will act promptly when the circumstances of an injury would alert an individual of average knowledge and experience that their rights have been violated or that a potential claim against another party might exist.

Statute of Repose

The statute of repose in Indiana is a legal provision that sets an absolute limit on the time period within which a plaintiff can bring a lawsuit, regardless of when the cause of action accrued. This means that after the specified period, no legal action can be initiated. It’s essentially a cut-off rule that aims to provide certainty and predictability in the law, protecting defendants from the threat of litigation after a reasonable period of time.

So, unlike the statute of limitations, the statute of repose puts an absolute limit on the potential liability of a defendant. Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act includes a statute of repose, which states that no claim can be brought against a healthcare provider more than four years after the date of the alleged act or omission.

The Indiana Products Liability Act includes a ten-year statute of repose. This statute necessitates that a plaintiff initiate legal action within ten years from the date the product was delivered to the first user or consumer. The only deviation from this rule is for a legal claim that arises at least eight years but less than ten years after the product was initially delivered. In such cases, a plaintiff retains the right to file a lawsuit within two years from the date the claim accrued, even if this extends beyond the ten-year period since the product’s delivery. The statute does not provide for any other exceptions, meaning that the ten-year limitation period cannot be extended under any other circumstances, including post-sale actions taken by the manufacturer such as repair, refurbishment, or reconstruction of a product.

Indiana Comparative Fault Rule

The Indiana comparative fault rule, often referred to as the modified comparative fault rule, reduces the amount of compensation a plaintiff can recover in a personal injury lawsuit if they are found to be partially at fault for their injuries. Moreover, if they are found to be more than 50% at fault, they can be barred from recovering any damages at all (Indiana Code § 34-51-2-6).

The Indiana Comparative Fault Act (IC 34-51-2) stipulates the conditions under which this rule is applied. According to this Act, in cases where the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant’s damages, the claimant is not entitled to recover any compensatory damages. However, if the plaintiff’s comparative fault in Indiana is less than or equal to the combined fault of all other persons involved, the total amount of damages they are entitled to recover is reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s fault.

What Constitutes “Fault”

The Comparative Fault Act mandates that the jury is responsible for allocating blame to individuals who played a role in causing the alleged injury. The concept of “fault” encompasses actions such as engaging in unreasonable risk-taking that does not constitute valid express consent, accepting risks, and failing unreasonably to prevent an injury or minimize damages.

Indiana Collateral Source Rule

The collateral source rule is a legal principle that addresses the compensation received by an injured party from sources other than the defendant in a personal injury case. The collateral source rule allows the injured party to retain the full amount of compensation received from these “collateral sources” without offsetting or reducing the damages awarded by the defendant.

Purpose of Rule

The aim of the collateral source statute is twofold: first, to ascertain the true extent of financial losses incurred by the prevailing party and to prevent them from double-recovery, where they seek compensation from multiple sources for each loss in a personal injury or wrongful death lawsuit.

Second, it upholds the traditional legal principle that collateral source payments should not diminish a damage award if they stem from the victim’s proactive actions, including both personally acquired insurance and government benefits, typically because the victim has contributed to these benefits through taxation. This is outlined in Ind. Code Ann. § 34-44-1-2.

How the Rule Works

Under the collateral source rule, payments or benefits received by the injured party from sources such as insurance policies, health insurance, disability benefits, or other forms of compensation are generally not taken into consideration when determining the damages owed by the defendant. This means that the defendant cannot reduce their liability or damages owed based on the compensation the injured party has received from other sources.

Limitations of Rule

Unfortunately, Indiana’s collateral source law is unfavorable to victims. The purpose of this statute is to prevent the plaintiff from recovering damages for which they have already received compensation from a third party instead of protecting victims who had the good sense to carry insurance. Indiana Code § 34-44-1-2 outlines the admission of evidence related to collateral source payments in personal injury or wrongful death actions. According to the statute:

• Collateral source payments, except for certain types, may be admitted as evidence in court. So Indiana makes the admission of collateral sources the rule instead of the exception. The exceptions include life insurance or death benefits, insurance benefits directly paid by the plaintiff or their family, and payments made by the state, the United States, or their agencies or subdivisions as compensation for the loss or injury in question.
• Evidence of reduced or discounted amounts can be presented to help establish the reasonable value of medical services. This principle applies universally to accepted reimbursements, whether they are the result of negotiations or mandates, and, as such, they provide valuable insight into determining the reasonable value of a medical service.
• The amount of money that the plaintiff is required to repay, such as worker’s compensation benefits, due to the collateral benefits received may be presented as evidence.
• The cost incurred by the plaintiff or their family for the collateral benefits received may also be presented as evidence.

The statute does not apply to payments made by an insurer under a policy purchased by the plaintiff or reimbursements by healthcare agencies administered through government programs.

Indiana Dram Shop Law

Indiana’s Dram Shop Law, codified under Indiana Code 7.1-5-10-15.5, establishes the legal framework for holding individuals or entities responsible for damages caused by intoxicated persons whom they have furnished with alcoholic beverages. This statute applies universally, without distinguishing between commercial establishments (dram shops) and social hosts, making anyone who provides alcohol liable under certain conditions.

Specifically, liability arises when alcohol is furnished to a person that the defendant knew or should have known was an intoxicated person, and that person subsequently causes harm due to their impairment.

The law aims to reduce alcohol-related injuries by encouraging responsible serving practices among those who provide alcohol, whether in a commercial setting or at private gatherings.

How to File an Indiana Medical Malpractice Lawsuit

To file a medical malpractice lawsuit in Indiana as required by Indiana Code section 34-18-8-4, a preliminary complaint for medical malpractice must be lodged with the Department of Insurance before any legal action is initiated in court. Plaintiffs cannot file an initial complaint to the Department of Insurance and later claim that the Act and its associated statute of limitations are not applicable. It’s important to note that the act of filing an initial complaint with the Department of Insurance doesn’t equate to the commencement of a lawsuit.  This preliminary complaint to the Department of Insurance serves as a necessary precondition before taking any legal action in court, rather than being considered as the commencement of a legal action in itself.

The purpose of this law is to establish a structured process for handling medical malpractice claims, ensuring fairness and providing an opportunity for resolution before proceeding to court. The chapter includes provisions related to the formation of medical review panels, the filing of complaints, and the review and evaluation of medical malpractice claims. There is no question that Indiana law makes it onerous for medical malpractice victims to file a lawsuit.  Here are the key points if you are looking to file an Indiana medical malpractice lawsuit:

• Medical Review Panels: In Indiana, before initiating a medical malpractice lawsuit in court, the claimant is required to present their claim to a medical review panel. This process is mandated by Indiana Code § 34-18-8-4, which stipulates that any legal action against a healthcare provider for malpractice must first be evaluated by this panel. The panel is composed of three healthcare providers and an attorney who serves as the chairman. The primary responsibilities of the chairman include facilitating the selection of the healthcare provider members, organizing the panel meetings, and ensuring a timely review of the submitted complaint. This preliminary step is essential for the claimant to proceed with a malpractice claim in the state’s courts.
• Panel Opinion: The panel’s opinion is not binding but is admissible as evidence in any subsequent legal proceedings which can have a real impact on a jury. It also presumably informs the parties involved about the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions.
• Statute of Limitations: Chapter 8 specifies the time limits within which a medical malpractice claim must be filed. In Indiana, the general statute of limitations for medical malpractice cases is two years from the date of the alleged malpractice or when the malpractice should have been discovered with reasonable diligence.
• Affidavit of Merit: The plaintiff is required to file an affidavit with the complaint, stating that they have consulted with a qualified healthcare professional who provided a written opinion that there is a reasonable basis to believe malpractice occurred. This affidavit helps establish the merit of the claim.
• Procedural Requirements: The chapter outlines various procedural requirements, including the content of the complaint, service of process, and other aspects of initiating a medical malpractice action.
• Verify It Is Malpractice: Just because an incident happens in a healthcare facility or involves a patient doesn’t automatically mean it’s a medical malpractice case. To determine if it qualifies as medical malpractice, we need to check if the claim is about the healthcare provider’s actions while they were performing their medical duties.

Bear in mind that the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act outlines specific procedures that must be followed for filing medical malpractice claims against healthcare providers  – but you have to be recognized as “qualified” under the Act or none of that applies.

According to Ind. Code § 34-18-3-1, for healthcare providers to be considered qualified under the MMA, they must adhere to the stipulations detailed in Ind. Code § 34-18-3, which includes making necessary contributions to the Patient’s Compensation Fund, thereby gaining access to the Act’s protective measures as described in Ind. Code § 34-18-2-24.5.

Medical malpractice claims directed at healthcare providers who do not meet these qualifications do not fall under the MMA’s scope of protection. Conversely, the Professional Services Statute has been applicable to malpractice claims against healthcare providers who do not qualify under the MMA since the MMA was established.

In a malpractice lawsuit in Indiana, expert witness testimony is generally required to establish the appropriate standard of care, demonstrate that it was breached, and prove causation.

The expert is usually a healthcare provider practicing or teaching in the same area of healthcare as the defendant. Indiana Code Title 34, Section 23-9-3-6, states that in a medical malpractice lawsuit, the plaintiff must file an affidavit with the complaint, declaring that the plaintiff consulted with at least one healthcare provider who is knowledgeable in the relevant field of medicine and who has determined in a written opinion that there is a reasonable basis to believe that malpractice has occurred. This opinion must be attached to the affidavit.

Indiana does not require a medical expert to use any magic words to opine that the doctor breached the standard of care.  The doctor’s opinion on the standard of care is to be inferred if the expert provides sufficient information.

Indiana Malpractice Cap

We have been talking about how Indiana makes protecting doctors from their own negligence a priority.  For wrongful death and catastrophic injury victims with a malpractice claim, the Indiana medical malpractice cap might be the single biggest obstacle to justice.  Indiana Code § 34-18-14-3 limits non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases to $1.8 million. So even a birth injury lawsuit where the damages can be in the tens of millions. For claims that arise after June 30, 2019, the cap is set at $1,800,000.

Indiana makes it even easier for doctors and hospitals.  Any excess amount beyond the total liability of all liable healthcare providers is paid from a state-run patient’s compensation fund.

Another malpractice cap in Indiana is on attorneys’ fees: 32%.

Indiana Malpractice Statute of Limitations

Indiana medical malpractice cases have the same two-year statute of limitations. However, there can be exceptions, especially involving minors or when the injury isn’t immediately discoverable. When the injury is discovered within this two-year window, the victim has a further two years to file a claim.

According to the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act’s (IMMA) statute of limitations, minors who have been victims of malpractice are required to lodge their claims either (1) within two years from the date of the injury, or (2) by their eighth birthday if the injury took place before they turned six years old.

Indiana Patients’ Compensation Fund

Indiana has a unique system in place to help those who have suffered significant damages due to medical negligence—the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (IPCF).

When a patient believes they have been a victim of medical malpractice by a healthcare provider, they have the option to file a lawsuit. Most healthcare providers in Indiana are required to carry medical malpractice insurance, which covers them in case they are found liable for medical malpractice and are required to pay damages to the injured patient.

But what happens when the damages awarded to the injured patient exceed the healthcare provider’s insurance coverage limits? In Indiana, you can turn to the IPCF.  The IPCF is a state-operated fund created to provide additional compensation to patients who have suffered significant damages due to medical malpractice.

To access the IPCF, patients must meet specific eligibility criteria. These criteria may include exceeding certain damage thresholds or demonstrating that the healthcare provider’s liability exceeds their insurance coverage. Patients may need to file a separate petition or claim with the IPCF, in addition to their lawsuit against the healthcare provider.

If the IPCF determines that the patient’s case qualifies for additional compensation, they may negotiate a settlement or make an award to the patient. This additional compensation is intended to cover the excess damages beyond what the healthcare provider’s insurance covers.

Healthcare providers who participate in the IPCF program are required to pay annual assessments into the fund. These assessments help fund the IPCF and cover the costs of providing additional compensation to patients. So in individual malpractice cases, physicians bear the initial responsibility for covering damages up to $250,000, as per the state’s cap. Any remaining damages, not exceeding $1 million, are then covered by the state Patient’s Compensation Fund.

The most recent data on the IPCF’s compensation disbursement is a few years old. But for some context, the fund disbursed a total of $115.5 million in 2020 to settle over 150 claims, resulting in an average compensation payout of approximately $740,000 per claim.

Indiana Informed Consent Law

Under Indiana law, physicians have a duty to disclose all significant medical information that a reasonable person would want to know to make an informed decision about their treatment. According to Indiana Code § 34-18-7-1, healthcare providers have a duty to disclose relevant information to patients, including the nature of the proposed treatment, potential risks and benefits, alternative treatments, and the likely outcome of each option. The information disclosed must be presented in a manner that the patient can understand, allowing them to make an informed decision about their healthcare.

Informed consent in Indiana requires more than mere verbal or written consent; it necessitates a meaningful dialogue between the healthcare provider and the patient. Healthcare providers should encourage patients to ask questions, address their concerns, and provide additional information as needed. This process fosters a collaborative relationship between the patient and the healthcare provider, ensuring that the patient’s values, preferences, and individual circumstances are taken into account.

In some cases, obtaining informed consent requires written documentation. Indiana Code § 34-18-7-2 stipulates that certain medical procedures, such as surgical interventions or experimental treatments, must be documented in writing. This written consent serves as evidence that the patient was adequately informed and voluntarily consented to the procedure.

Under the HCCA, if a patient is incapable of consenting, a family member or other individual with legal authority can make health care decisions on behalf of the patient.

Indiana Dog Bite Law

Indiana’s dog bite law holds owners liable if their dog bites someone unprovoked, and the person bitten was acting peaceably and was in a location they were legally allowed to be. Indiana Code § 15-20-1-3 expresses this strict liability standard that holds dog owners responsible for injuries caused by their dogs, regardless of the dog’s previous behavior or the owner’s knowledge of such behavior. Here is a summary of the key points of Indiana’s dog bite law:

• Strict Liability: dog owners are strictly liable for injuries caused by their dogs. This means that the owner is responsible for damages resulting from a dog bite or attack, regardless of any fault or negligence on their part.
• Trespassing Exception: The strict liability standard does not apply if the injured person was trespassing, committing a crime, or provoking the dog at the time of the incident.
• Injury Compensation: If a person is bitten or attacked by a dog in Indiana, they may seek settlement compensation or a jury payout for their injuries. This can include, of course, medical expenses, pain and suffering, lost wages, and other damages resulting from the incident.
• Statute of Limitations: Indiana imposes
  the same two-year statute of limitations for dog bite lawsuits.
• Negligence Claims: While Indiana’s dog bite law follows strict liability, it is still possible to pursue a negligence claim against the dog owner in certain circumstances. This may be applicable if the owner’s negligence, such as failing to properly restrain or control the dog, contributed to the injury.

Sex Abuse Law

In Indiana, victims of child sexual abuse have until the age of 31 to file a civil lawsuit. For sexual abuse discovered in adulthood, victims have seven years from the date of discovery to file an Indiana sex abuse lawsuit.  Here are the specific rules for civil sex abuse lawsuits in Indiana:

• Statute of Limitations: Indiana imposes a time limit, known as the statute of limitations, within which a victim can file a lawsuit for civil sex abuse cases. A 2019 law extended the statute of limitations, allowing victims of child sex abuse to file a lawsuit until the age of 31 or until July 1, 2024, for victims over the age of 31.
• Revival Window: Indiana established a “revival window” as part of the extended statute of limitations. This window provides a one-time opportunity for victims of any age to file a civil lawsuit for sex abuse that occurred before July 1, 2024. The revival window allows victims to file their claims until July 1, 2026.
• Civil Liability: Perpetrators of sex abuse can be held personally liable for their actions. Institutions or organizations, such as schools or churches, may also be held responsible if they failed to protect the victim or were negligent in preventing or responding to the abuse.
• Confidentiality Agreements: Confidentiality agreements, which would require victims to remain silent about the abuse, are prohibited in settlement agreements related to child sexual abuse claims in Indiana. This ensures that victims cannot be forced to keep the abuse confidential.

Indiana Wrongful Death Law

In Indiana, the personal representative of the deceased’s estate can file a wrongful death lawsuit. The statute of limitations for these claims is two years from the date of death. Damages in wrongful death cases may cover loss of love and companionship, loss of earnings, funeral and burial expenses, and medical and hospital expenses.

Indiana Code § 34-23-1 establishes the legal framework for seeking compensation when a person’s death is caused by the wrongful or negligent act of another party. This law allows for a civil lawsuit to be filed in such cases. Only the personal representative of the deceased person’s estate has the authority to initiate a wrongful death claim in Indiana on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries.  The personal representative is typically appointed through the probate court process. The Indiana wrongful death statute of limitation is two years.

Like many states, Indiana law also allows for a separate cause of action called a survival action. This allows the personal representative to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the deceased person’s estate for any personal injury, pain, and suffering the deceased experienced before their death.

Indiana Premises Liability Law

Premises liability law governs incidents where a person is injured on another person’s property. In Indiana, property owners have a duty of care to maintain safe premises for visitors.

It is a well-established principle that a property owner is obligated to provide reasonable care for the safety of an invitee while they are present on the property. This duty of care includes considering the foreseeability of harm, a factor that the courts determine as part of their duty analysis.

If the owner fails to uphold this duty and an injury occurs, they may be held liable.

Indiana Car Accident Law

Indiana is a “fault” state in car accident cases. This means the person responsible for causing the car accident is also responsible for any resulting harm and damage. The comparative fault rule also applies to car accident cases, meaning damage recovery will be reduced in proportion to the injured party’s degree of fault.

The concept of fault encompasses the unreasonable taking on of risk that does not amount to legally binding express consent, the acceptance of risk, and the unreasonable neglect to prevent an injury or to reduce the severity of damages.

Minimum insurance coverage is not great in Indiana for victims: $25,000 for bodily injury per person, $50,000 for bodily injury per accident, and $25,000 for property damage.

Lawsuits Against the Government in Indiana

Indiana Product Liability and Mass Tort Cases

Under Indiana law, a manufacturer or seller of a product can be held responsible if that product is defective and that defect causes harm.

There are a number of national mass torts or “class actions” that involve Indiana plaintiffs, including claims our law firm is handling across the country:

• Hair relaxer lawsuit: chemical hair relaxer products, which are predominantly used by African American women, have been linked to the development of uterine cancer, ovarian cancer, uterine fibroids, and other medical conditions based on recent evidence.
• Depo-Provera Lawsuit: The Depo-Provera litigation involves lawsuits filed by women who allege that the birth control injection caused them to develop serious health conditions, including brain tumors such as meningiomas, due to prolonged exposure to synthetic progestin. Plaintiffs claim that Pfizer failed to adequately warn about these risks, and the lawsuits seek compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other damages.
• Suboxone: This drug causes awful tooth decay.  The drug maker did not warn of this risk until 2022. But… there is a problem with these claims in Indiana in 2024 because of the two-year statute of limitations in product liability lawsuits.
• Uber Sex Abuse Lawsuit: Uber is facing lawsuits from passengers—primarily women—who allege they were sexually assaulted or raped by drivers due to the company’s failure to implement proper safety measures. The lawsuits claim Uber prioritized growth over rider safety, ignored warning signs, and failed to conduct adequate background checks or respond to reports of driver misconduct.

Hiring an Indiana Personal Injury Lawyer

Our firm handles serious injury and wrongful death lawsuits in Ohio, working with trusted colleagues in Indiana.  We compensate your Indiana lawyers out of our attorneys’ fees.  You pay no additional contingency fees for having two law firms instead of one.  And you only owe a fee if you get settlement compensation or a jury payout for you.

If you were hurt and believe you have a potential civil tort claim, click here for a free no-obligation consultation or call us today at 800-553-8082.