Love v. Meyer & Najem Construction, LLC
950 N.E.2d 7
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Love injury on May 13, 2008 at Brownsburg High School project; Meyer Najem served as construction manager contracted with Owner; General Interiors contracted with Owner to install acoustical elements; no contract between Meyer Najem and General Interiors.
- James Love was responsible for safety procedures for General Interiors' crew; Andrew Slye on-site supervised the project.
- To install curtains, Love used 30-foot extension ladders; Slye directed placing something under ladder feet to protect flooring; carpet remnant allegedly placed nap-side down by Slye or at least approved for use.
- Carpet under ladders allegedly slid, causing Love and ladder to fall; Love suffered permanent injuries.
- Meyer Najem moved for summary judgment arguing no duty by contract or conduct; Loves argued Meyer Najem controlled means/methods and thus assumed a duty; trial court granted summary judgment for Meyer Najem; Loves appealed.
- Court reverses, finding a genuine issue of material fact whether Meyer Najem assumed control over ladder use; summary judgment improper; McClure v. Strother recognized as controlling on control over instrumentality.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Meyer Najem owe a duty to Love based on contract or conduct? | Love | Najem | Genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Blake v. Calumet Constr. Corp., 674 N.E.2d 167 (Ind.1996) (duty analysis; duty depends on relationship and foreseeability)
- McClure v. Strother, 570 N.E.2d 1319 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (control over instrumentality may create duty when owner dictates use)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991) (three-factor duty analysis: relationship, foreseeability, public policy)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind.2004) (duty may be mixed question of law and fact depending on circumstances)
- Schlotman v. Taza Cafe, 868 N.E.2d 518 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (assumption of duty creates special relationship; generally for factfinder)
- Carter v. Indianapolis Power & Light Co., 837 N.E.2d 509 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (duty framework; questions for finder of fact)
- Williams v. Cingular Wireless, 809 N.E.2d 473 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (three-factor duty considerations in absence of established duty)