John Kader v. State of Indiana, Department of Correction, and The Geo Group, Inc., 1 N.E.3d 717

Background

In 2007 inmate John Kader fell in New Castle Correctional Facility, allegedly when his right "drop foot" caught on uneven aluminum floor grates; he suffered a head injury and received hospital treatment.
The facility is owned by the State and operated by private contractor The GEO Group, Inc. (GEO) under contract with the Department of Correction; medical care was provided by a separate contractor, not GEO.
Kader sued the State, the Department, and GEO in 2009 for negligence relating to grate design/maintenance, supervision, and failure to arrange recommended follow-up medical care.
During summary judgment briefing Kader relied on depositions and an affidavit of fellow inmate LaDarryl Holland describing grate condition and prior complaints; defendants moved to strike Holland’s affidavit and for summary judgment.
The trial court struck Holland’s affidavit in full and entered summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals reviewed the evidentiary ruling and the grant of summary judgment.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Motion to strike Holland affidavit	Holland’s affidavit is based on personal knowledge and supports factual disputes about grate condition and prior complaints	Affidavit lacks personal-knowledge foundation, contains hearsay and legal conclusions, and conflicts with employee affidavits	Trial court properly struck inadmissible portions (hearsay/opinion), but abused discretion in striking portions reflecting Holland’s personal observations and actions; those admissible parts must be considered on remand
Summary judgment based on credibility and contributory negligence	Kader presented deposition testimony and (admissible parts of) Holland affidavit creating factual disputes on grate condition and his use of mobility aids	Defendants argued Kader was contributorily negligent for walking without cane/wheelchair and evidence showed no defect notice	Reversed: trial court improperly weighed credibility and resolved factual disputes; contributory negligence was for the factfinder (and GEO is not entitled to complete defense via contributory negligence)
Nature of defendant’s duty (invitee vs. custodian duty)	As custodian of inmates, GEO owed a special duty to preserve inmates' life, health, and safety; premise-based invitee/licensee categories inapt	GEO treated as ordinary landowner owing invitee duties; no evidence GEO knew of grate defect, so no liability	Reversed: court must apply custodian duty (special responsibilities) to GEO as prison operator rather than ordinary invitee premises standard
Duty re: post-hospital medical care	Kader alleges GEO failed to arrange follow-up treatment recommended by hospital	GEO submitted contract evidence showing medical care was provided by another contractor and GEO was restricted from providing medical care	Affirmed as to GEO (no duty shown); reversed as to State and Department (no designated evidence absolving them of duty)

Key Cases Cited

Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (trial court has broad discretion on evidentiary rulings, including striking affidavits)
DeLage Landen Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Cmty. Mental Health Ctr., Inc., 965 N.E.2d 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (affidavit sufficiency can be upheld where personal-knowledge recitals are present)
Reeder v. Harper, 788 N.E.2d 1236 (Ind. 2003) (substance of affidavit controls; inadmissible form may be considered if substance admissible in other form)
Sauders v. Cnty. of Steuben, 693 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1998) (custodian of inmates owes duty to exercise reasonable care to preserve life, health, and safety)
Minneci v. Pollard, 132 S. Ct. 617 (U.S. 2012) (private prison operators are subject to state-law tort remedies rather than federal constitutional claims in certain contexts)
Butler v. City of Peru, 733 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. 2000) (movant bears initial burden at summary judgment to eliminate genuine issues of material fact)