Articles Posted in Premises Liability

On November 29, 2023, the Indiana Court of Appeals published its Opinion in Brummett v. Bailey, 23A-CT-683, slip op. Brummett is the latest case in a string of Indiana Court of Appeals decisions following the Indiana Supreme Court’s Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384, 389 (Ind. 2016). In these cases, the courts have been grappling with the question of whether a landowner or businessowner owes a duty of care to its invitees (what the law calls customers) for the criminal acts of other parties. The key determining factor in these cases has consistently been whether the owner knew or had reason to know of the imminent harm.

On the evening of January 4, 2020, at a bar in Muncie, Indiana, Plaintiff Bailey was pushed off his bar stool following an altercation with another patron. Bailey filed a lawsuit against the bar, its owner, and employees, claiming they were negligent because of their employees’ acts and failures to act to prevent the harm. The bar defendants moved for summary judgment claiming that it and its employees did not owe a duty to Bailey to protect him from an unforeseeable act. The trial court denied the bar defendants’ motion and the defendants appealed.

In its decision, the Brummett court pointed to analysis from Singh v. Singh, 155 N.E. 3d 1197 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), which discussed the recent Indiana Supreme Court holding from Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Lt. v. Porterfield, 140 N.E.3d 843 (Ind. 2020). As these cases discuss, an owner must “take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks.” Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316, 326 (Ind. 2016). In determining whether an owner has a duty for the criminal act at issue, the Court focuses on the foreseeability of the attack which requires “an evaluation of (1) the broad type of plaintiff and (2) the broad type of harm.” Id. at 325. “In other words, a court looks at foreseeability globally for the purpose of determining whether the category of negligent conduct at issue is sufficiently likely to result in the kind of harm suffered such that a duty—and thus liability—may be imposed on the negligent party.” Godfread v. Martin’s Super Markets L.L.C., 120 N.E.3d 234, 240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019)

Landlords, like all property owners, have a duty to ensure that the houses and apartments they rent to tenants are safe.  Whether it is the driveway being plowed after a snowstorm or handling potentially dangerous maintenance issues, tenants often have certain expectations for their landlord. If a person is hurt because of their landlord’s negligence, Indiana law allows them to hold the landlord liable for their injuries.

In a recent state appellate opinion, the court was tasked with deciding whether a landlord could be held liable for a tenant’s slip and fall outside of the apartment complex. According to the court’s opinion, the tenant was severely injured exiting the apartment building, slipping on a patch of ice in the driveway. While the landlord normally hired a snow plow contractor to keep the driveway safe, they failed to do so this particular winter. The plaintiff sued his landlord for not keeping the property safe and not removing the snow and ice from the driveway, the cause of his injury.

In this case, the court noted that a tenant who slips on ice can bring a negligence claim against a landlord who failed to exercise reasonable care in removing the ice, unless the plaintiff is more than fifty percent responsible for their injuries. Here, the court ruled that the landlord was negligent as he did not attempt to remove the snow or ice. However, the court also held that the tenant’s injuries were more attributable to his own error than the landlord’s. Thus, the court found that the landlord was not liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Like many other states, Indiana premises liability law generally allows those injured on someone else’s property to file a civil negligence suit against the property owner. For example, if someone slips and falls on a wet floor in a grocery store, or trips on an uneven sidewalk in front of someone’s house, they likely have a potential negligence suit against the owner of the grocery store or house property. However, Indiana also has what is called a recreational-use statute, to insulate certain landowners from such claims. The law, which is in Indiana Code section 14-22-10-2, provides that landowners who allow those to use their property for recreational purposes—such as swimming, camping, or sightseeing—without charging a fee are not liable for the injuries occurring on the property.

For an example of a personal injury suit that would likely be barred by this statute, take a recent appellate opinion from Georgia, a state with a similar law. According to the court’s written opinion, a public park was used by a University to set up a free concert series. On the night in question, the plaintiff attended the concert with her sister, but as she was leaving, she fell backward on a staircase with no handrails, sustaining serious head injuries and ultimately dying. Her estate filed a wrongful death suit against the University group that held the concert, but the defendants claimed their suit was barred by the Georgia recreational use statute.

The question in the case was whether the defendant invited people to the park for recreational or commercial purposes. The plaintiffs attempted to argue that the concert served a commercial purpose, since the defendant invited vendors to sell food and drinks, and allowed sponsors to erect tents with their logos to promote their businesses. However, the defendants were able to convince the court that the purpose was recreational despite these facts, since concert-goers were not required to purchase food or drinks and could bring their own, and there was no fee charged for the concert. As a result, the deceased’s estate could not recover in a wrongful death suit against the University group, and in fact could not even bring the suit to court.

The Court of Appeals of Indiana recently issued an opinion in a lawsuit stemming from injuries a woman suffered after she fell and hit her head outside of her apartment complex. According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the apartment complex and rental company, alleging that they breached their duty of keeping the public walkways and entry areas safe from dangerous conditions. In response, the apartment company filed a motion for summary judgment and a motion to strike the plaintiff’s expert report. The trial court granted the defendant summary judgment, and the woman filed an appeal arguing that there was a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the apartment complex breached its duty to the plaintiff.

Under Indiana law, summary judgment is designed to terminate litigation when there is no dispute as to a genuine issue of material fact. A material fact is one that is relevant to the ultimate resolution of an issue in the case. In the context of negligence cases, summary judgment is frequently inappropriate because the cases are often fact-specific and governed by a “reasonable person” standard. However, the court may grant summary judgment motions when an undisputed piece of material evidence eliminates a critical element of a negligence claim. Plaintiffs who want to recover from a landlord must show that the landlord breached a duty that they owed the plaintiff. Moreover, typically, plaintiffs cannot succeed on a negligence claim merely by showing that they fell and suffered injuries; they must generally show that the landlord knew or should have known about the hazard.

In this case, the plaintiff argued that the apartment company failed to remove hazardous ice, which caused her to slip and fall. Further, in addition to evidence of her fall, the plaintiff testified that on the day of the accident, she tried to avoid a slippery area by walking on the service ramp. Although, she could not see the ice on the service ramp, she assumed she slipped because of the ice. The defendants maintain that the ramp was not icy, and they bolstered their position by pointing to the plaintiff’s statement that she did not see the ice. The court reasoned that because the plaintiff’s claim was not based on inferential speculation, there remained a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the apartment company breached its duty to maintain a safe walkway. Ultimately, the court reversed the trial court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings.

When an individual suffers an injury at an Indiana business, they should explore all possible avenues of relief against all potentially liable parties. In addition to the person or entity that is directly responsible for their injuries, Indiana injury victims should consider third-parties, who also contributed to the damages they sustained. In some cases, business owners may be accountable under a negligent entrustment theory when an injury results from a dangerous instrumentality.

For example, recently, a state appellate court issued an opinion in a case stemming from injuries a woman suffered at a grocery store. Among other issues, the woman filed a negligent entrustment claim against the grocery store when a customer driving a motorized cart struck her. The woman alleged that the grocery chain provided the cart to customers without any instruction or warnings and assumed that the drivers knew how to operate the cart. The lower trial court found in favor of the woman; however, the appellate court ultimately concluded that the woman did not meet the causation element of a negligent entrustment case. Further, they held that she could not prove that the store should have known that the driver would operate the cart negligently or recklessly.

An individual or entity may be liable under the theory of negligent entrustment when they allow a person to operate a dangerous instrumentality, and that person causes an injury to a third party while using that instrumentality. Often, these cases arise when a person entrusts someone with a vehicle or a firearm. Victims in these cases can prevail based on the idea that the person entrusting the item to the negligent party should have known that the person could harm others with the object based on the negligent party’s inexperience or age.