5 N.E.3d 1166
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Romero was driving south on I-65 in Scott County; Brady, employed by Advantage, followed in the right lane behind Stigler's box truck.
- After Romero passed Brady, Stigler swerved into Romero’s left lane, causing Romero to leave the roadway and enter Brady’s lane.
- Brady’s tractor-trailer struck Romero, causing extensive injuries to Romero.
- Romero sued Stigler, Brady, and Advantage for negligence; she settled with Stigler and dismissed him from suit.
- Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing Brady owed no duty to Romero and no causal link existed.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding Brady had no duty, no breach, and no causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Brady owe Romero a duty of care? | Romero: Brady owed a general duty to avoid injuring other motorists. | Brady: no duty beyond following ordinary care; Webb framework unnecessary here. | Yes, Brady owed a duty; summary judgment improper. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact on breach for following distance? | Romero argues too-close following (less than 200 ft vs. 40 ft proffered) breached duty. | Appellees contend no breach proven; causation issues unresolved. | Breach is not conclusively shown; issue remains for trial. |
| Is proximate cause a question for the jury? | Romero contends Brady’s proximity foreseen collision; causation should be for jury. | Appellees argue timing and absence of direct causation negate liability. | Proximate cause is a jury question; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Was designated evidence properly designated to support summary judgment? | Romero designated Nogan report and deposition; 40-foot figure disputed but not properly designated. | Appellees relied on designated evidence; Nogan deposition was not properly designated. | Romero’s 40-foot claim not properly designated; summary judgment remains improper on this basis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (three-factor Webb test used to determine duty, not always required)
- Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 2003) (duty presumption; Webb not needed when duty already established)
- Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Indiana Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001) (duty focus; breach analysis follows once duty is settled)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (proximate cause usually for the jury; foreseeability standard)
- Wilkerson v. Harvey, 814 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (motorist duty to use ordinary care to avoid injuries)
- Cole v. Gohmann, 727 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (motorist duty to maintain proper lookout and control)