120 N.E.3d 621
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Converse, an employee of a tenant (ANC), walked across Elkhart General’s hospital-owned property after a case conference and fell on April 10, 2012, injuring her arm; she had visited the building 2–3 times per week and was instructed to use a side door.
- Converse says she stepped on a loose landscaping rock on the sidewalk (similar in color to the sidewalk), struck a raised concrete area, then fell; she did not see the rocks before falling and later observed scattered rocks on the sidewalk.
- Converse sued Elkhart General for negligence/premises liability in July 2013; the hospital moved for summary judgment in 2018, and the trial court granted it; Converse appealed.
- The central legal questions were whether (1) the rocks created an unreasonable risk of harm, (2) Elkhart General had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard, and (3) the condition was known or obvious to Converse.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed under Indiana’s more-onerous summary-judgment standard, which requires the movant to affirmatively negate the opponent’s claim before shifting the burden.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the landscaping rocks posed an unreasonable risk of harm | Converse: rocks blended with sidewalk color, no border/barrier, created risk invitees wouldn’t reasonably discover | Elkhart Gen.: Converse normally looks where she walks and didn’t see rocks, so rocks were not an unreasonable danger | Reversed: factual dispute exists; Converse’s evidence sufficient to raise question of unreasonable risk |
| Whether Elkhart General had actual or constructive knowledge of the hazard | Converse: failure to produce evidence does not negate her claim; facts permit inference hospital should have known rocks could litter sidewalk | Elkhart Gen.: lack of any evidence that hospital personnel knew of rocks before the fall | Reversed: hospital failed to affirmatively negate knowledge; summary judgment improper |
| Whether the condition was known or obvious to the invitee | Converse: she did not see or know of the rocks; color blending made them not obvious | Elkhart Gen.: condition was known/obvious (citing cases where hazards were or should have been obvious) | Reversed: material factual dispute whether rocks were obvious; question for jury |
| Whether summary judgment was proper under Indiana law | Converse: movant must negate opponent’s claim and Elkhart General did not do so | Elkhart Gen.: plaintiff lacked evidence on essential elements | Reversed: movant did not meet Indiana’s affirmative-negation burden; grant of summary judgment was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (elements of negligence/premises-liability duty framed under Restatement § 343)
- Roumbos v. Samuel G. Vazanellis & Thiros & Stracci, PC, 95 N.E.3d 63 (Ind. 2018) (discussion of known/obvious condition and objective, reasonable-person analysis)
- Schulz v. Kroger Co., 963 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (example where defendant affirmed lack of actual/constructive knowledge via affidavit; supports movant’s burden when properly presented)
- Podemski v. Praxair, Inc., 87 N.E.3d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (known-and-obvious hazard found where frequent visitor knew of lighting/condition)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (obvious risk of errant golf balls appropriate for summary judgment)
- City of Lawrence Util. Serv. Bd. v. Curry, 68 N.E.3d 581 (Ind. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment in Indiana)