Carol Ann Maurer v. Speedway, LLC, 774 F.3d 1132

Plaintiff Carol Ann Maurer, an invitee, slipped and fell outside a Speedway convenience store after walking around a permanent retail display that narrowed the sidewalk to about 24 inches, injuring her shoulder.
Maurer sued Speedway in Indiana state court for negligence (premises liability); Speedway removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds.
Maurer sought to introduce a South Bend municipal ordinance (which incorporates ANSI A117.1-2003 accessibility standards requiring a 36-inch minimum clear width for accessible routes) to show Speedway had notice that the narrowed walkway was unreasonably dangerous.
Maurer disclosed the ordinance and a City Building Commissioner witness very late in discovery (days before the discovery deadline and 15 days before trial). Speedway moved in limine to exclude the ordinance; the district court excluded it as irrelevant and, alternatively, under Rule 403 for unfair prejudice.
At trial Speedway presented evidence the display had been in place 1.5–2 years with no complaints, and the curb was painted yellow; the jury returned a verdict for Speedway and the district court’s judgment was appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of South Bend ordinance	Ordinance is relevant evidence of notice that the narrowed walkway created an unreasonable risk (would show Speedway violated a building standard requiring 36" clear width).	Ordinance is irrelevant because it was intended to protect disabled persons (accessible routes), not nondisabled invitees like Maurer; also late disclosure prejudiced Speedway.	Court affirmed exclusion: ordinance irrelevant because it protects disabled persons and Maurer was not in that protected class; exclusion upheld.

Mister v. Northeast Ill. Commuter R.R. Corp., 571 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2009) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Smith v. Hunt, 707 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2013) (reversal on evidentiary error requires showing the ruling affected outcome)
Kho v. Pennington, 875 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007) (statute or ordinance is evidence of negligence only if intended to protect the plaintiff’s class and guard against the type of harm that occurred)
Blood v. VH-1 Music First, 668 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2012) (apply state substantive law in diversity cases)
Douglas v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. 1990) (elements of landowner liability to invitees)
Smith v. Baxter, 796 N.E.2d 242 (Ind.) (objective standard for whether a landowner should expect an invitee to discover a condition)