Marvin Podemski v. Praxair, Inc. and Antibus Scales & Systems, Inc.
87 N.E.3d 540
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- On Aug. 17, 2011, truck driver Marvin Podemski (Linde Group) tripped on a black air-supply hose at Praxair’s East Chicago facility while hooking up a trailer at night and fell.
- Podemski frequently worked at Praxair (roughly daily over many years), carried a flashlight, and admitted he had hooked/unhooked trailers for decades and sometimes worked in low light.
- Podemski sued Praxair and later added Antibus (scale service company), alleging negligent maintenance, inadequate lighting, and failure to warn about the hose configuration.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment; Podemski filed late-designated depositions including Mitchell Mullins’s deposition shortly before the summary-judgment hearing; the trial court denied supplementation and excluded Mullins’s testimony.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding (inter alia) the hose configuration was an open and obvious condition, Podemski was familiar with the premises, and Defendants could not reasonably anticipate he would fail to observe the hazard; the court denied Podemski’s motion to correct error and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying late supplementation of Mullins’s deposition | Mullins’s deposition was newly discovered and would create factual disputes about hose configuration and warnings | Supplementation was untimely after multiple extensions; Mullins’s account was unreliable and contradicted trip records | Denial of supplementation was not an abuse of discretion given delay and procedural history; Mullins excluded |
| Whether Praxair owed and breached a duty to invitee Podemski regarding the hose and lighting | The hose configuration and inadequate lighting created an unreasonably dangerous condition and Praxair failed to warn or remedy it | Condition was open and obvious; Podemski was experienced and familiar with the premises and should have observed/protected himself | No duty to protect against an obvious danger; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
| Whether Antibus owed or assumed a duty regarding the grate/hose | Antibus’s servicing of the scales could create responsibility to secure or warn about the hose | Antibus did not work on the grate/hose in the relevant period and did not go below the scales during inspections | No evidence Antibus created or had superior knowledge of the hazard; summary judgment for Antibus affirmed |
| Whether factual issues (lighting, hose configuration) precluded summary judgment | Designated depositions raise fact questions about whether the condition was unreasonably dangerous and whether lighting prevented discovery | Even assuming dim lighting, Podemski failed to show he did not see the hose; facts lead to single inference that danger was open and obvious | Facts undisputed lead to single legal inference — danger was open and obvious; summary judgment appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (elements required to recover in negligence)
- Douglass v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. 1990) (adoption of Restatement standard for landowner liability to invitees)
- Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (possessor not liable where invitee knew and appreciated danger and proceeded)
- King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. 2003) (court may decide breach when undisputed facts permit only one reasonable inference)
- Scripture v. Roberts, 51 N.E.3d 248 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (no abuse in denying last-minute supplementation before summary-judgment hearing)
- Pelak v. Ind. Indus. Servs., Inc., 831 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (property owner’s duty to maintain premises for business invitees)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)