Michael Martin v. Colby Hayduk and Tiffany Stafford
91 N.E.3d 601
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Martin entered defendant Colby Hayduk’s driveway to inquire about a truck; he was bitten by multiple dogs on Hayduk’s property and sustained injuries.
- Hayduk owned the property and had an in-ground electric (invisible) fence approximately 35 feet inside the property line; Hayduk’s dogs and Stafford’s dogs wore electric collars and had been trained to the fence.
- Stafford (Hayduk’s girlfriend) had brought five dogs to the property that day; some dogs had prior bite incidents (one bit Stafford’s ex-husband; Stafford had been bitten while breaking up fights).
- Hayduk’s property displayed multiple “beware of dog” signs; one sign by the driveway appeared obscured by foliage and Martin testified he did not see the signs before entry.
- Martin sued Hayduk and Tiffany Stafford for negligent failure to confine and control their dogs; defendants moved for summary judgment arguing no duty beyond refraining from willful injury (trespasser defense), proper confinement by electric fence, and that Martin incurred the risk by ignoring warnings.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding negligence-per-se not established but genuine issues remain on breach and incurred risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligence per se — ordinance limiting number of dogs | Martin: defendants violated Brownsburg ordinance limiting dogs, so negligent per se | Defendants: ordinance targets public health/overpopulation, not personal injury risk | Held: No — ordinance’s purpose is public health; not negligence per se |
| Negligence per se — at-large ordinance | Martin: Stafford’s dogs were “at large” (in Brownsburg, not Zionsville) and not under control | Defendants: dogs were confined to Hayduk’s property by electric fence and not "at large" | Held: No — dogs confined by electric fence, ordinance not shown violated |
| Common-law negligence — breach of reasonable care | Martin: evidence of dogs’ dangerous propensities (prior bites) makes electric fence insufficient; genuine factual dispute exists | Defendants: dogs were confined and trained on the electric fence; no breach as a matter of law | Held: Genuine issue of material fact exists whether known dangerous propensities made fence insufficient; summary judgment improper |
| Plaintiff’s incurred risk / contributory fault | Defendants: Martin saw/would have seen “beware of dog” signs and assumed risk, barring recovery | Martin: he did not see signs entering; one sign was obscured by foliage; factual dispute on actual knowledge | Held: Genuine factual dispute whether Martin had actual knowledge; incurred risk goes to fault, not absence of duty; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard; draw inferences for nonmoving party)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (self-serving testimony can defeat summary judgment)
- Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-S. Bend, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2015) (negligence cases are fact-sensitive; summary judgment rarely appropriate)
- DiMaggio v. Rosario, 52 N.E.3d 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (appellate court may affirm summary judgment on any basis in record)
- Kho v. Pennington, 875 N.E.2d 208 (Ind. 2007) (elements of negligence per se — statute must protect plaintiff class and risk of harm)
- Ross v. Lowe, 619 N.E.2d 911 (Ind. 1993) (confinement behind a fence is not automatically sufficient when dog has known dangerous propensity)
- Cook v. Whitesell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 2003) (duty of reasonable care required where owner knows of vicious propensity)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (under Comparative Fault Act, incurred risk affects allocation of fault but does not eliminate duty)