81 N.E.3d 1160
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Walters, a business invitee at JS Aviation’s open house, walked from a dimly lit pilot’s lounge into a brightly lit hangar and fell at a five-and-one-quarter inch step located a few inches inside the hangar threshold.
- The step was close to the threshold, had black nonslip mats on either side that made the floor appear level, and lighting contrast made the hangar much brighter than the lounge.
- Multiple warning signs existed: a red floor sign near the hangar-side threshold reading “!!!CAUTION!!! WATCH YOUR STEP,” a similar sign on an opened door (eye-level), and a wall sign partially obscured by the open door; chairs with additional signage were customarily placed in front of the open doors for events but were not yet positioned when Walters arrived.
- Walters admitted she would have seen the step if she had looked down at that moment but testified she perceived the floor as one flat level extending into the hangar.
- Walters sued for premises liability; JS Aviation moved for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment for JS Aviation, and Walters appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the unexpected step constituted an "unreasonable risk of harm" under Restatement (Second) of Torts §343 for invitees | The step’s location (immediately after the threshold), lighting contrast, and floor mats made the step effectively concealed and thus an unreasonable risk | Ordinary steps are not an unreasonable risk; invitees are expected to observe steps and JS Aviation provided warnings | Reversed: factual issues exist whether the step’s characteristics and surroundings created an unreasonable risk of harm, precluding summary judgment |
| Whether JS Aviation exercised reasonable care (adequacy/placement of warnings) to protect invitees | Warnings and customary chair placement were insufficient given the concealed nature of the step and event setup | JS Aviation posted multiple warnings and usually placed chairs with signs; thus it exercised reasonable care | Reversed: triable issues exist whether the warnings and precautions were adequate; breach is for the factfinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review on summary judgment and burden allocation)
- Brown v. Buchmeier, 994 N.E.2d 291 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (elements of negligence and when breach can be decided as a matter of law)
- Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (adoption of Restatement (Second) of Torts §343 for invitee liability)
- Cox v. Paul, 828 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. 2005) (circumstances where breach may be decided by court as matter of law)
- Bertrand v. Alan Ford, Inc., 537 N.W.2d 185 (Mich. 1995) (recognizing that a step’s character, location, or surroundings can create an unreasonable risk of harm)