Joy Elaine Gwinn v. Harry J. Kloeppel & Associates, Inc., 2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 152

In 2007 Shenandoah School Corporation contracted with Harry J. Kloeppel & Associates, Inc. (Kloeppel) for a high school renovation; Kloeppel purchased projection screens and subcontracted installation to Casework Installations, Inc.
On October 26, 2009, teacher Joy Gwinn was injured when a ceiling-mounted projection screen fell while she was retracting it, fracturing her humerus.
Gwinn sued Kloeppel for negligence, alleging negligent installation/hanging of the screen.
Kloeppel moved for summary judgment, arguing it did not personally install the screen, owed no duty to Gwinn, and (alternatively) that proximate cause was lacking; Gwinn moved for partial summary judgment asserting Kloeppel owed a nondelegable contractual duty and is vicariously liable for subcontractor negligence.
The trial court granted summary judgment for Kloeppel, finding no duty as a matter of law; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the contract created a nondelegable duty owed to Gwinn and remanded for fact issues on breach and proximate cause.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Kloeppel owed a duty to Gwinn	Gwinn: contract between Kloeppel and the school imposed a specific, nondelegable duty to supervise workmanship and be responsible for subcontractors, creating a duty to foreseeable third parties (like her).	Kloeppel: it did not install the screen and owed no duty to Gwinn as a matter of law (and alternatively disputed proximate cause).	The court held Kloeppel owed a duty as a matter of law because the contract imposed specific supervisory/responsibility obligations that are nondelegable and extend to foreseeable victims.

Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 2004) (abrogated acceptance rule; contractor may owe duty to foreseeable third parties after completion)
Shawnee Constr. & Eng’g, Inc. v. Stanley, 962 N.E.2d 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (contract must affirmatively impose a specific duty of care to trigger nondelegable-duty exception)
Beatty v. LaFountaine, 896 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (lists exceptions to general rule that principals are not liable for independent contractor negligence)
Bagley v. Insight Commc’ns Co., 658 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 1995) (nondelegable-duty exceptions apply to third-party plaintiffs as well as workers)
Stumpf v. Hagerman Constr. Corp., 863 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (existence and extent of duty is a question of law; analyze contract language)
Kovach v. Caligor Midwest, 913 N.E.2d 193 (Ind. 2009) (summary-judgment standard; review de novo and construe facts for nonmoving party)
Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) (overview of doctrines imposing vicarious liability)