950 N.E.2d 747
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Bell arrived at Grandville’s apartment complex to babysit; temperatures in the 40s with prior snow piles melting and refreezing at night.
- Ice had formed earlier in the morning near Bell’s parking area; maintenance had applied ice melt that morning.
- Bell’s daughter had informed Grandville multiple times that ice tended to form where Bell parked.
- At 4:30 p.m. an ice check by Grandville found no ice and no melt; maintenance staff left the complex by 5 p.m.
- Bell slipped on ice near her car after returning to the complex around midnight; she was injured and sued in 2008.
- Trial court granted Grandville summary judgment in 2010; Bell appeals seeking reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Grandville breach its duty to Bell as landowner to invitees? | Bell argues Grandville knew or should have known of the dangerous ice and failed to act. | Grandville contends no breach since there was no undisputed notice and no duty breached as a matter of law. | Issue contested; material fact exists as to breach |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammond v. Allegretti, 262 Ind. 82 (Ind. 1974) (landlord duty to exercise reasonable care on premises)
- Orth v. Smedley, 378 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. App. 1978) (Connecticut Rule on landlord liability for ice/snow not absolute)
- Rossow v. Jones, 404 N.E.2d 12 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (landlord duty to keep common areas reasonably safe for ice/snow)
- Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 867 (S.D. Ind. 2005) (minutes-long time frame not imposing continuous duty; weather developing)
- Braun v. George C. Doering, Inc., 907 S.W.2d 371 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995) (constructive knowledge of dangerous condition requires time and ability to remedy)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (Restatement § 343 vs. § 360; duty considerations in invitee context)