77 N.E.3d 1280
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Waylon Abel died after contracting primary amoebic meningoencephalitis (PAM) following recreational swimming at West Boggs Lake; the Estate sued the Parks Board, Daviess County, and the Daviess County Health Department for negligence.
- Naegleria fowleri (the amoeba) naturally occurs in warm freshwater; infections are extremely rare (132 U.S. cases from 1962–2013) and require forceful water entry into the nasal passage.
- CDC guidance: no routine/rapid standardized test to detect or quantify N. fowleri in lakes/rivers; testing generally not recommended; occurrence is common but infections are rare; control methods for natural bodies of water do not exist.
- Parks Board operates the park; neither the Parks Board nor the County had previously known PAM cases in Indiana, and they did not test specifically for N. fowleri; the Health Department did not conduct lake testing and had no prior training regarding the amoeba.
- Trial court denied defendants’ converted summary-judgment motions; interlocutory appeal followed. The dispositive question was whether the defendants owed a legal duty to Abel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether landowner/operator (County & Parks Board) owed a duty to Abel (invitee) | Parks/County should have known about/assumed presence of N. fowleri and warned or tested per CDC guidance | No duty: infection is extraordinarily rare; no reliable testing or control; infection was not reasonably foreseeable | No duty as a matter of law; defendants entitled to summary judgment (trial court erred in denying MSJ) |
| Whether local Health Department owed a duty to Abel | Health Dept. should have a role in warning/testing given public-health responsibilities | No special relationship; same foreseeability and public-policy barriers as to County/Parks Board | No duty under three-part test (relationship, foreseeability, public policy); defendants entitled to summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (clarifies foreseeability’s role in duty analysis for landowner/invitee claims)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (explains landowner-invitee duty and distinguishes conditions of the land from activities; foreseeability as threshold for duty)
- Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. 1999) (governmental units generally owe same duty of care as private landowners for public recreational facilities)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (premises-liability framework referenced in landowner duty analysis)
- Megenity v. Dunn, 68 N.E.3d 1080 (Ind. 2017) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (rejects imposing blanket duties that would amount to strict liability)