Haire v. Parker
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1845
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Donald K. Haire and Julie A. Haire sued Parker for negligence arising from an ATV incident at Haspin Acres; Parker moved for summary judgment relying on a Release and Waiver signed by Donald.
- Donald signed a Release that purports to release Haspin Acres and related entities from claims arising in the non-public area; it also states Donald assumes risk and indemnifies certain parties.
- The incident involved Parker’s ATV tipping, rolling, and subsequently injuring Donald; Parker described starting his ATV after it had rolled and the throttle being stretched, contributing to the accident.
- The trial court granted Parker’s summary judgment while denying the Haires’ cross-motion for partial summary judgment; the Haires appeal, challenging the Release’s applicability and related negligence questions.
- The appellate court reversal rests on unresolved questions about (i) whether Parker was a rider within the Release’s scope and (ii) whether Donald was in a non-public area when injured; the court also finds factual disputes on breach of duty.
- The case is remanded for fact-finding consistent with the release interpretation and negligence standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Release cover Parker as a rider? | Haire: no explicit naming; cannot enforce for Parker. | Parker: rider, release applies to all riders entering the park. | Question of fact; not proper for summary judgment. |
| Was Donald in a non-public area under the Release at the time of the incident? | Haire disputes that the location qualified as a non-public area; area not clearly defined as such. | Parker argues the area falls within non-public areas and is within the Release’s scope. | Question of fact; not proper for summary judgment. |
| Is Parker's conduct within the range of ordinary behavior in ATV riding, such that breach of duty is absent as a matter of law? | Haire contends inherent risk or non-sport nature prevents summary judgment; issues of reasonableness remain factual. | Parker relies on Pfenning to argue no breach as a matter of law. | Issue of fact exists; summary judgment improper; remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- OEC-Diasonics, Inc. v. Major, 674 N.E.2d 1312 (Ind. 1996) (contractual intent for third-party benefits requires affirmative appearance)
- Huffman v. Monroe Cnty. Cmty. Sch. Corp., 588 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind.1992) (interpret contracts to harmonize terms; ambiguity requires extrinsic evidence)
- Cummins v. McIntosh, 845 N.E.2d 1097 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (summary disposition where scope and effect of release are disputed)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind.2011) (sports-injury breach-of-duty analysis; reasonable as a matter of law when within ordinary conduct)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.2010) (breach element typically a question for fact; context matters)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind.2003) (reasonableness and duties in negligence actions involving public utilities)
- Beam v. Wausau Ins. Co., 765 N.E.2d 524 (Ind.2002) (contract interpretation guides and ambiguity standard)
- Dunn v. Meridian Mut. Ins. Co., 836 N.E.2d 249 (Ind.2005) (negligence standards and statutory framework cited)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 920 N.E.2d 253 (Ind.2010) (contract interpretation and extrinsic evidence when ambiguity exists)