1.
LuAnn Plonski alleged that after shopping at a Kroger Co. grocery store in Indianapolis, Indiana, during afternoon hours, she proceeded to the stores parking lot (where her car was parked), placed her purse in the shopping cart she was using, opened the trunk of her car, and began loading her groceries into the trunk. She noticed that a man was walking toward her. He did not appear to be a Kroger employee (and, in fact, was not a Kroger employee). The man began running toward Plonski, who grabbed her purse and tried to run away but did not succeed. The man grabbed Plonski and her purse. He then picked her up, threw her in the trunk of the car, and began slamming the trunk lid on her legs. When the man looked away, Plonski jumped out of the trunk and ran into the Kroger store. The man then left the scene with Plonskis purse.

In an effort to collect damages for her injuries and the loss of her purse, Plonski filed a negligence lawsuit against Kroger in an Indiana court. After completion of discovery in the case, Kroger moved for summary judgment. Kroger argued that it owed no duty to Plonski and that even if it did owe a duty, there was no breach. In connection with its motion, Kroger provided affidavits from its risk manager and safety manager. Those affidavits asserted that the Kroger store in whose parking lot the incident occurred is located in a part of the city that has a reputation for low levels of criminal activity and that in the two-year period before the incident at issue, there had been only one report of criminal activity occurring on the stores premises. Plonski responded to Krogers motion by citing her deposition testimony and other evidence. The trial court denied Krogers summary judgment request, and the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed. Kroger appealed to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

How do you believe that the Indiana Supreme Court should rule on whether Kroger owed a duty to Plonski and on whether Kroger was entitled to summary judgment? Post your answers and the legal rationale for your answer.

2.
Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant’s railroad after buying a ticket to go to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another place. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemed unsteady as if about to fall. A conductor on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another conductor on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appearance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks exploded when they fell. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform, many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff, causing injuries for which she sues.

In this scenario, do you believe the railroad should be liable for the injuries suffered by the plaintiff? Please post your answer here.