Hale v. SS Liquors, Inc.
956 N.E.2d 1189
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Hale, a hotel guest, slipped and fell in a bathtub at a Shelbyville Hampton Inn in August 2008; no handrail, tub appeared clean, and Hale could not identify a specific cause other than slipperiness.
- Safe Step contracted in March 2008 to perform an anti-slip treatment on all bathtubs; work in the room occurred in April 2008 and did not involve installing anti-slip mats or stickers.
- Hale filed suit for negligence on September 15, 2009; Safe Step was added as a defendant on November 13, 2009; dispute centered on whether the bathtub was unreasonably slippery.
- NTA, an engineering firm, inspected Hale’s tub in January 2010; NTA reported the tub complied with ASTM F0462, noting grey circles/buildup in the bottom surface.
- Hale argued the grey circles indicated a texture that could have increased slip resistance; Hicks reviewed NTA’s report but did not inspect the tub and suggested the circles might not have existed at the time of Hale’s fall.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for SS and Safe Step in March 2011; Hale appeals the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did there exist a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty? | Hale contends tub was unreasonably slippery and defendants breached duties. | SS and Safe Step assert no evidence of unreasonableness or breach; tub met safety standards. | No genuine issue; no breach established as a matter of law. |
| Is res ipsa loquitur applicable to a bathtub slip-and-fall? | Hale implies res ipsa could justify inference of negligence. | Res ipsa generally inapplicable to slip-and-fall; lack of exclusive control and lack of unusual occurrence. | Res ipsa loquitur does not apply; insufficient evidence of unreasonably unsafe condition. |
| Did evidence show SS or Safe Step had actual or constructive notice of a hazard? | Hale suggests hidden, dangerous texture could have been present at time of fall. | No proof of prior incidents or notice; tub was clean and compliant with standards. | No evidence of notice; no breach shown. |
| Does the ASTM F0462 compliance and lack of explicit non-slip devices negate negligence? | Circles/texture could have increased safety; non-slip devices absent. | Compliance with industry standards does not require perfect safety; absence of devices not proving fault. | Compliance with standard plus no showing of unreasonable risk supports judgment for defendants. |
Key Cases Cited
- Booher v. Sheeram, LLC, 937 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (hotel owes reasonable care to protect guests from harm; no duty to guarantee safety)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (Restatement § 343 premises liability standard for invitees)
- Gillis, Lincoln Operating Co. v., 114 N.E.2d 873 (Ind. 1953) (slip-and-fall in hotel shower; comparative discussion of common hazards and duties)
- Golba v. Kohl's Dep't Store, Inc., 585 N.E.2d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (summary judgment reversal where hazard specifics supported inference of negligence)
- Midwest Commerce Banking Co. v. Livings, 608 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (negligence requires evidence of cause of fall beyond mere accident)
- Ogden Estate v. Decatur County Hosp., 509 N.E.2d 901 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (negligence requires identifiable hazardous condition and proof of maintenance responsibility)