994 N.E.2d 291
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- On May 20, 2006, Donna Brown fell off a two-step landing inside Fashion Trends while looking at jewelry displayed on the steps; she later alleged serious injuries.
- Brown sued store owners Paul and Sally Buchmeier for negligence, alleging lack of edge markings, display placement that diverted attention, and absence of handrails.
- At deposition Brown repeatedly stated she did not know what caused her fall and could not identify any defect or specific cause.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, designating Brown’s deposition to show she had no evidence of breach or proximate cause.
- Brown responded with an affidavit asserting she forgot she was on steps because her attention was drawn to the earrings and that there were no markings or handrails; the affidavit directly conflicted with her deposition testimony.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Buchmeiers; Brown appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was improper because factual disputes existed on breach and causation | Brown: affidavit and complaint show merchandise on steps, no edge markings or handrails, and she stepped backward after looking at merchandise | Buchmeiers: Brown’s deposition shows she does not know why she fell; affidavit contradicts prior sworn testimony and offers only speculation | Affirmed: affidavit contradicting deposition insufficient to create genuine issue; undisputed facts show only a mere accident and no proof of breach or proximate cause |
Key Cases Cited
- Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001) (summary judgment standards; construe facts in favor of nonmovant)
- Taylor v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc., 949 N.E.2d 361 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (negligence cannot be inferred from mere fall; speculation insufficient)
- Scott Cnty. Family YMCA, Inc. v. Hobbs, 817 N.E.2d 603 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (plaintiff’s failure to identify causative condition defeats negligence claim at summary judgment)
- Gaboury v. Ireland Rd. Grace Brethren, Inc., 446 N.E.2d 1310 (Ind. 1983) (affidavit that contradicts deposition cannot be used to defeat summary judgment when it only raises credibility)
- Winfrey v. NLMP, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishable: plaintiff designated evidence detailing a dangerous condition sufficient to survive summary judgment)
- Cox v. Paul, 828 N.E.2d 907 (Ind. 2005) (breach usually a jury question unless reasonable minds would agree)