id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-22872	Kruse, Paul S.; Morris, Larry L.; Boyle, Heather D.; Moore, Katherine M.	Recent Developments in Indiana Tort Law	2018	29	.pdf	application/pdf	12165	734	66	Ultimately, the court “expressly disapprove[d]” the Webb approach to defining duty, reasoning that Webb was applied inconsistently in lower courts and created confusion as to the proper duty analysis.29 The court held that foreseeability is a component of duty and is to be determined by the court and opted to follow the framework outlined in Goldsberry v. Grubbs.30 The court of appeals reversed, finding that Martin did have a duty as a social host to render aid to Michalik after he was injured and that questions of fact existed as to whether Martin furnished beer to Brothers.9 On transfer, the supreme court did not consider the Webb v. Jarvis10 three-part balancing test, but rather looked to Indiana law on premises liability.11 The court noted that, as pertaining to activities on the premises (as opposed to a dangerous condition on the land), the critical element for premises liability is whether the landowner can foresee the harm.12 This is a determination of law to be made by the court.13	cache/inlawrev-22872.pdf	txt/inlawrev-22872.txt