Hoosier Mountain Bike Association, Inc., City of Indianapolis, and Indy Parks and Recreation v. Richard Kaler
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 133
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Town Run Trail Park (City of Indianapolis via Indy Parks) maintained trails; HMBA maintained features. An Eagle Scout-built wooden berm (banked turn) offered three lines: avoid on dirt, low-grade wooden line (small exit jump), or high-grade wooden line (≈2-foot drop at exit, only partially tapered).
- On July 9, 2011, experienced rider Richard Kaler (regular, skilled, aware that crashes are common) rode the berm twice; first took the low line successfully, later chose the high line in failing light and crashed, suffering internal lacerations.
- Kaler testified he did not inspect the high line before his second run, thought the exit tapered off, and acknowledged that riders often dismount to inspect unfamiliar obstacles and that crashes are an inherent risk of the sport.
- Kaler sued the City for premises liability; the City moved for summary judgment. Trial court denied the motion; the court of appeals accepted an interlocutory appeal.
- The court analyzed the case under Indiana premises-liability principles for land conditions (Burrell), considering whether the City knew or should have known of an unreasonable risk and whether Kaler was contributorily negligent (governmental-defendant context).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine dispute precluded summary judgment on premises liability | Kaler argued the berm’s partially tapered exit created an unreasonable, non-obvious hazardous condition for which the City is responsible | City argued the risk was obvious to an experienced rider and it lacked actual/constructive knowledge of an unreasonable, non-obvious condition | Held for City: no genuine issue — Burrell elements not met; reasonable to expect Kaler to appreciate risk and protect himself |
| Whether Kaler was contributorily negligent | Kaler likely argued he exercised judgment in choosing the high line and that the City retained responsibility | City argued Kaler failed to take ordinary precautions (e.g., dismount/inspect) and proceeded in darkness despite known risks | Held Kaler was contributorily negligent as a matter of law for failing to take precautions a reasonable rider would take |
Key Cases Cited
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (establishes three-part Burrell test for landowner liability to invitees for dangerous conditions of the land)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (applies Burrell in sports context; risks inherent to activity may not constitute unreasonable risks of harm)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (distinguishes injuries from land conditions versus activities and clarifies applicable duty; court here treated berm as a land condition under Burrell)
- Funston v. School Town of Munster, 849 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. 2006) (contributory negligence can be decided as a matter of law when facts permit only one reasonable inference)