Daviess-Martin County Joint Parks and Recreation Department, Daviess County Indiana, and Daviess County Health Department v. The Estate of Waylon W. Abel by John Abel, Personal Representative
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 260
| 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)