222 N.E.3d 950
Ind. Ct. App.2023Background
- MMRF owns Community Hospital where, during a patient ultrasound, a portable ultrasound machine was plugged in at the head of the bed with its power cord running across a dimly lit shared room.
- Patricia Hintz, visiting her mother and carrying bags, tripped on a looped power cord in the walkway and was injured.
- Hintz sued MMRF for negligence, alleging premises liability as an invitee and vicarious liability for the ultrasound technician’s conduct.
- MMRF moved for summary judgment arguing the technician (Peacock) was an independent contractor and the cord was not an unreasonably dangerous condition; the trial court denied the motion.
- Before trial, Hintz moved in limine to bar a nonparty defense; the court granted the motion and also excluded evidence that Peacock was an independent contractor (tied to the nonparty ruling).
- At trial the court allowed jury instructions on agency/apparent agency; the jury awarded damages to Hintz (65% fault for MMRF). On appeal the court affirmed summary judgment denial, reversed aspects of the in limine ruling and the agency instructions, and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hintz) | Defendant's Argument (MMRF) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Denial of summary judgment | Denied; material factual issues (duty/breach/knowledge of cord) preclude SJ | Technician was independent contractor; cord not unreasonably dangerous; no duty/knowledge | Affirmed — material factual issues (premises-liability duty/knowledge) precluded summary judgment |
| 2. Motion in limine re: nonparty/independent-contractor evidence | Evidence of agency/apparent agency supports vicarious liability; nonparty defense irrelevant | Nonparty defense untimely; evidence that Peacock was independent contractor should be admissible to rebut vicarious liability | Mixed: trial court correctly barred a formal nonparty defense but abused discretion in excluding evidence that Peacock was an independent contractor (that evidence is relevant to vicarious liability) |
| 3. Judgment on the evidence (T.R. 50) | Sufficient evidence supported Burrell premises-liability theory and vicarious-liability theory | No evidence MMRF had actual or constructive knowledge of dangerous condition before fall; JOE should be granted | Denial of motion for judgment on the evidence affirmed (evidence and reasonable inferences supported submitting Burrell claim to jury) |
| 4. Jury instructions on agency/apparent agency | Agency/apparent agency instructions appropriate given plaintiff’s theory | Instructions unsupported by admissible evidence; offer of proof is not evidence; requested independent-contractor instructions should have been given | Court abused discretion by giving agency/apparent agency instructions (unsupported by evidence); error probable affected verdict — reversal and remand for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) (adopts Restatement §429 and holds apparent agency can impose hospital vicarious liability for independent contractors)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (landowner owes invitee duty of reasonable care under Restatement §343)
- Roumbos v. Samuel G. Vazanellis & Thiros and Stracci, P.C., 95 N.E.3d 63 (Ind. 2018) (wires/cords in hospital room present jury question on obviousness and summary judgment inappropriate)
- Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Lohman, 661 N.E.2d 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (independent-contractor control rule: duty tied to control of instrumentality or superior knowledge)
- Arrendale v. Am. Imaging & MRI, LLC, 183 N.E.3d 1064 (Ind. 2022) (discusses Sword and apparent agency framework)
- Owens Corning v. Cobb, 754 N.E.2d 905 (Ind. 2001) (procedural requirements for asserting nonparty fault defenses)
- Purcell v. Old Nat. Bank, 972 N.E.2d 835 (Ind. 2012) (standard for reviewing judgment on the evidence/T.R. 50)
- Bradford v. State, 675 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1996) (offer of proof is not evidence)