Lori A. Henderson v. Reid Hospital and Healthcare Services
17 N.E.3d 311
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Henderson slipped on ice in Reid Hospital parking lot on Feb. 23, 2010; parking area on hospital campus where Henderson worked at Richmond Cardiology.
- Hospital maintenance handled snow/ice removal; security alerted engineering and maintenance crews to begin salting and clearing when slick conditions formed from freezing fog.
- Maintenance started at 6:41 a.m., using two salt trucks and hand spreaders; by 7:45 a.m. total salt and calcium chloride applied exceeded 5,600 pounds.
- Henderson arrived for work around 7:20–7:30 a.m.; she slipped as she exited her vehicle; ice was observed in the parking lot near her vehicle.
- Security photographed the icy area around Henderson’s car at about 7:40 a.m. and notified maintenance that the lots were insufficiently salted.
- Henderson sued in 2012; the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Hospital in 2013, holding no duty breach given timing; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana adopts the Connecticut Rule for snow/ice on premises | Henderson asserts Connecticut Rule applies, requiring reasonable care even during ongoing weather conditions. | Hospital argues Indiana has not adopted the Connecticut Rule; duty attaches under Indiana reasonable-care standard without waiting for storm cessation. | Connecticut Rule not adopted; duty assessed under Indiana reasonable-care standard. |
| Whether the Hospital owed a duty to Henderson as an invitee to maintain reasonably safe premises | Hospital failed to exercise reasonable care given known slick conditions. | Hospital acted promptly once alerted and applied substantial de-icing materials; timing disputed. | Yes, duty exists; genuine issues of material fact remain as to breach. |
| Whether the facts show Hospital breached its duty in removing ice | Evidence supports failure to remove or adequately manage ice prior to Henderson's fall. | Hospital promptly responded after notice; action consistent with reasonable care. | Material facts exist; cannot decide breach on summary judgment. |
| Whether the Hospital had actual notice and sufficient time to address the hazard | Not enough time before Henderson’s fall; ice formed due to freezing fog. | Hospital had notice at 5:55 a.m. and acted within an hour; reasonable diligence. | Hospital had notice and acted swiftly, but breach remains a factual question. |
| Whether the trial court’s use of the wrong standard requires affirmance | Wrong standard applied due to Connecticut Rule. | Even with the wrong standard, there is a sufficient basis to affirm if no factual dispute on breach. | Court reviewed de novo and held issues of fact remain; reversal of summary judgment warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammond v. Allegretti, 262 Ind. 82, 311 N.E.2d 821 (Ind. 1974) (landlord must exercise reasonable care; no inflexible rule to immediately remove ice)
- Orth v. Smedley, 177 Ind. App. 90, 378 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. Ct. App. 1978) (no duty where hazard formed after midnight with no notice or opportunity to respond)
- Rising-Moore v. Red Roof Inns, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 2d 867, 875 (S.D. Ind. 2005) (duty not to remove ice during a short storm; timely action matters)
- Bell v. Grandville Coop., Inc., 950 N.E.2d 747, 753 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (negligence questions often for juries; breach requires factual dispute)
- Rossow v. Jones, 404 N.E.2d 12 (Ind. Ct. App. 1980) (landlord has duty to keep common areas reasonably safe from natural ice/snow)
- Poe v. Tate, 161 Ind. App. 212, 315 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) (duty of care for invitees not diminished by natural accumulations of ice/snow)
- Winfrey v. NLMP, Inc., 963 N.E.2d 609 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (status of entrant determines duty; invitee on premises)