71 N.E.3d 64
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- In 2011, 85-year-old Elizabeth Roumbos tripped on wires running along the floor of a hospital room while returning a glass to a table and suffered serious injury.
- Roumbos acknowledged in deposition that she had seen the wires earlier, deliberately avoided them once, and did not look down before the fall; she testified the wires caused the fall.
- Roumbos originally hired the law firm (Vazanellis and Thiros & Stracci, PC) to sue the hospital, but the firm failed to file the complaint within the statute of limitations.
- Roumbos then sued the law firm for legal malpractice; the firm moved for summary judgment, arguing that, even if timely filed, the underlying suit against the hospital would have failed because the hospital owed no actionable duty given the known/obvious nature of the wires.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the law firm, finding Roumbos knew of the hazard and would have avoided it, so the hospital did not breach its duty. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment for the law firm was proper because the hospital owed no duty for a known/obvious danger | Roumbos: even though she knew of the wires, a fact issue exists whether the hospital should have anticipated she might forget or be distracted and still be harmed | Law firm: Roumbos admitted knowledge of the wires and that she would have avoided them if she had looked, so hospital breached no duty and summary judgment is proper | Reversed: genuine issue of material fact exists whether the hospital should have anticipated harm despite the known/obvious danger, so summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009) (appellate review protects nonmoving party's day in court)
- Schultheis v. Franke, 658 N.E.2d 932 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (legal-malpractice proof requires a case-within-a-case)
- Harradon v. Schlamadinger, 913 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (elements of negligence claim)
- Smith v. Baxter, 796 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2003) (adopting Restatement §343 standard for invitee liability)
- Countrymark Coop., Inc. v. Hammes, 892 N.E.2d 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (known/obvious danger and foreseeability issues preclude summary judgment in some cases)
- PSI Energy, Inc. v. Roberts, 829 N.E.2d 943 (Ind. 2005) (comparative knowledge relevant to breach-of-duty factual inquiry)
- Miller v. Rosehill Hotels, LLC, 45 N.E.3d 15 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (fact question whether owner should have anticipated invitee’s conduct despite obvious risk)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary-judgment burdens and standards)