963 N.E.2d 573
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hamilton sued Key and Key's employers for negligence after a collision involving a signaled driver at an Indiana intersection.
- Key waved Owens through a junction after checking for oncoming traffic, signaling that the path was clear.
- Owens entered the intersection, and Hamilton, traveling in the adjacent lane, was struck as a result.
- The jury found 5% fault to Hamilton, 45% to Key, and 50% to Owens, with damages of $2.2 million; judgment was $990,000.
- Defendants challenged summary judgment, judgment on the evidence, directed verdict, and a Restatement § 324A instruction.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding Key owed a duty to Hamilton as a matter of law, and the instruction was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by signaling driver to third party | Key owed duty to Hamilton under Webb factors. | No duty to third party; signaling driver cannot create liability. | Key owed a duty to Hamilton as a matter of law. |
| Proximate cause and foreseeability | Key's signaling foreseeably caused Hamilton's injuries; proximate cause established. | Foreseeability and causation not established for third-party Hamilton. | Key's conduct proximate cause; fault apportioned by the jury. |
| Jury instruction on assumption of duty (Restatement § 324A) | Instruction correctly stated law and supported by evidence. | Instruction misstates law; not supported by the record. | Any error harmless; proper overall guidance given. |
Key Cases Cited
- Claxton v. Hutton, 615 N.E.2d 471 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (duty when signaling may depend on case specifics)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991) (duty balance: relationship, foreseeability, public policy)
- Humphery v. Duke Energy Ind., Inc., 916 N.E.2d 287 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (proximate cause and foreseeability framework)
- Estate of Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265 (Ind.2003) (duty analysis balancing Webb factors)
- Dawson v. Griffin, 249 Kan. 115 (Kan.1991) (courtesy signals and duty considerations cited)
- Peka v. Boose, 431 N.W.2d 399 (Mich.App.1988) (duty when signaling to signaled driver questioned)