Carla S. Arthur, as Sepcial Representative of the Estate of Mitch Arthur v. MacAllister Machinery Co., Inc., and MacAllister Rental, LLC
83 N.E.3d 783
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent Mitch Arthur, a long‑time maintenance worker for Scepter, was fatally injured on Feb. 3, 2012 while exiting a rented JLG boom lift; the lift became trapped between its basket controls and a furnace hood.
- MacAllister leased the boom lift to Scepter and completed an Equipment Condition Report (ECR) at delivery stating the unit was inspected and controls/safety devices worked; ECR warned only properly trained personnel should operate equipment.
- IOSHA initially faulted MacAllister for not offering training to receiving employees but later cleared MacAllister after MacAllister asserted it had offered training to Scepter management and that Scepter had not requested training.
- The Estate sued MacAllister (after product claims against manufacturer were dismissed under repose) alleging negligence for failing to inquire about the lift’s intended use and failing to train or offer training to Scepter employees.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for MacAllister; the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, focusing on whether MacAllister owed a legal duty to Arthur to provide or ensure training or to inquire about intended use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MacAllister owed a duty to Arthur to offer or provide operator training based on ANSI A92.5 | ANSI A92.5 §5.7 requires dealers to offer appropriate training — MacAllister therefore had an affirmative duty to train or offer training to Arthur/Scepter operators | ANSI A92.5 requires dealers only to offer training and to familiarize a designated receiving person; it does not require dealers to train all operators or inquire proactively; duty to train operators rests with the user (lessee/employer) | Court held no duty owed to Arthur: ANSI provisions impose an obligation to offer training and familiarize a designated receiver, but do not create a duty to train lessee employees or to inquire into intended use absent a request |
| Whether ANSI A92.5 or A10.42 creates a common‑law duty on a lessor/dealer to assess intended use or supervise operator qualification | ANSI sections (including §5.1 and A10.42) impose duties to consider intended use and to train/assess operators — MacAllister should have inquired and ensured proper training | ANSI language assigns operator training and ensuring qualified operators to the user/employer; A10.42’s rigging provisions apply to employers/supervisors, not equipment lessors | Court held the ANSI standards do not expand MacAllister’s duty under common law; user (Scepter) had the responsibility to ensure trained operators; MacAllister did not assume user duties unless it directed personnel to operate |
| Whether MacAllister’s actions created a special duty under common‑law negligence (independent of ANSI) | MacAllister’s repeated rentals and knowledge of uses created an undertaking or increased risk such that it owed a duty to ensure safe operation | MacAllister did not undertake to provide operator training or supervise operations and did not increase the risk; no authority imposes such duty on lessors in Indiana | Court held no common‑law duty existed; summary judgment appropriate because absence of duty defeats negligence claim |
| Whether factual disputes precluded summary judgment | Estate argued material facts (training offers, who received familiarization, actual delivery practices) raise issues for trial | MacAllister pointed to undisputed evidence showing ECR, offers of training to management, IOSHA clearance, and no request for training from Scepter | Court found no genuine issue on the legal duty element; summary judgment affirmed because no duty as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard and genuine‑issue analysis)
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (elements of negligence and duty as question of law)
- King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. 2003) (negligence elements framework)
- Henderson v. Reid Hosp. & Healthcare Servs., 17 N.E.3d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (role of trial court findings on summary judgment review)
- Reed v. Beachy Const. Corp., 781 N.E.2d 1145 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (summary judgment proper when undisputed facts negate an element of negligence)