Cheryl Weaver v. Speedway, LLC, 28 F.4th 816

In December 2017 Cheryl Weaver tripped on the curb outside a Speedway convenience store entrance, fell, and was injured; she sued Speedway for negligence (premises liability).
Weaver testified she did not see the curb; photographs (taken days after the fall) show faded paint on a standard‑height curb and no obvious structural defects; store has glass doors and signs on either side of the doorway.
Speedway’s corporate manual required curbs in front of doorways to be painted yellow; a former Speedway general manager said an unpainted curb would warrant an emergency work order.
The district court bifurcated discovery (liability first), and on cross‑motions for summary judgment the magistrate granted judgment for Speedway, ruling the curb’s elevation change was open and obvious and Speedway could not reasonably anticipate Weaver’s failure to protect herself.
Weaver appealed, arguing the unpainted curb and Speedway’s painting policy created triable issues of breach despite the open‑and‑obvious defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Speedway breached its duty by failing to paint the curb such that a jury could find an unreasonable risk of harm	Weaver: curb not demarcated and thus not obvious; failure to paint created unreasonable tripping hazard	Speedway: curb was a standard elevation change and therefore open and obvious; no breach as a matter of law	Court: Affirmed summary judgment for Speedway—curb was open and obvious and no reasonable expectation Speedway should anticipate invitee’s failure to protect herself
Whether Speedway’s internal painted‑curb policy creates a triable issue of negligence	Weaver: policy shows Speedway knew the risk and its violation supports a finding of breach	Speedway: internal policies may be admissible but cannot, by themselves, define or raise the legal standard of care	Court: Policy is relevant but insufficient alone to create a genuine dispute of material fact (citing Wright)

Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (elements of negligence in Indiana premises‑liability claims)
Douglass v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. 1990) (adopting Restatement §343 test for landowner liability)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 2002) (internal safety manuals are admissible but do not establish the legal standard of care)
Walters v. JS Aviation, Inc., 81 N.E.3d 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (a step in an unusual/distracting setting can present a triable issue despite being observable)
Roumbos v. Samuel G. Vazanellis & Thiros & Stracci, PC, 95 N.E.3d 63 (Ind. 2018) (known or obvious danger defense and related foreseeability analysis)
Maurer v. Speedway, LLC, 774 F.3d 1132 (7th Cir. 2014) (applying Indiana substantive law in diversity cases)
Grant v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 870 F.3d 562 (7th Cir. 2017) (nonmoving party’s obligation to identify specific admissible evidence to oppose summary judgment)
Payne v. Pauley, 337 F.3d 767 (7th Cir. 2003) (limits on speculative affidavit testimony and requirement that inferences be grounded in personal knowledge)