id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-26103	Kruse, Paul S.; Morris, Larry L.; Boyle, Heather D.; Moore, Katherine M.	Recent Developments in Indiana Tort Law	2022	23	.pdf	application/pdf	9387	608	68	A patient died from complications following bariatric surgery, and the patient’s estate filed a medical malpractice action against the provider.198 The medical review panel unanimously concluded the provider deviated from the standard of care, which was a factor in the patient’s resulting damages.199 During voir dire, a prospective juror repeatedly stated he did not want to serve on the jury and did not think he could put a dollar amount on non-economic damages.200 The trial court denied the estate’s request to strike the juror for cause, so the Estate used its final peremptory challenge to strike the juror.201 The estate also identified the juror on which it would have used its peremptory challenge had the court struck the other juror for cause.202 At trial, the jury found in favor of the provider.203 The court of appeals determined the trial court abused its discretion in denying the Estate’s motion to strike the juror for cause.204 A divided supreme court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for a new trial.205 The trial court found the juror was just unwilling to serve, but the supreme court explained the trial court and the attorneys for both sides have a joint responsibility to rehabilitate a juror if issues arise about a juror’s fitness to serve.206 Here, the attorney’s efforts to rehabilitate the juror were met with equivocal answers.207 As such, the trial court should have 194. [Vol. 54:1039 held that, in determining the foreseeability of a criminal attack, courts should determine if the defendant had reason to know of present and specific circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to recognize the likelihood of imminent harm.	cache/inlawrev-26103.pdf	txt/inlawrev-26103.txt