239 N.E.3d 63
Ind. Ct. App.2024Background
- James and Dawn Bruski filed a negligence suit against NFI Interactive Logistics LLC and its driver, D’Andre Terry, after James collided with a disabled vehicle on an unlit interstate ten minutes after Terry had struck the same vehicle with his commercial truck.
- Plaintiffs allege that Terry failed to turn on hazard lights or place warning devices as required by federal regulations after his collision, thus failing to warn oncoming motorists, including James, of the hazard.
- The Defendants filed a Rule 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, arguing the complaint did not state a valid claim because Terry did not create the original hazard and owed no duty to warn about someone else’s vehicle.
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss; Defendants pursued an interlocutory appeal arguing the complaint does not state a plausible legal claim.
- At issue are both a common law duty to warn fellow motorists when one contributes to a hazard, and a regulatory duty arising from federal motor carrier safety regulations.
- The appellate court’s review focused on whether the complaint as pleaded stated any set of facts under which Plaintiffs could recover.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Common law duty to warn after contributing to a road hazard | Terry’s collision contributed to/increased the hazard, creating duty to warn others. | Only the originator of the hazard has a duty; Terry did not create the initial obstacle. | Complaint states viable theory—duty exists if Terry's actions increased or contributed to the roadway hazard. |
| Negligence per se from violation of FMCSRs | Failure to activate hazard lights/warning devices violated statutes meant to protect James | Regulation designed only to protect from stopped CMVs, not third-party vehicles. | Viable negligence per se claim—James is within protected class, harm is type statute aims to prevent. |
| Adequacy of complaint under notice pleading | Facts pled are sufficient to state a claim under Indiana’s liberal notice pleading rules. | Complaint lacks detail; fails to allege Terry owed duty or caused hazard. | Complaint is sufficient under notice pleading standards. |
| Relevance of original negligence in creating hazard | Duty may arise even if initial collision not negligent if hazard increased. | Duty only if original act was negligent or actor had control over hazard. | Duty may still arise if actor’s non-negligent act increases risk/hazard to others. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandberg Trucking, Inc. v. Johnson, 76 N.E.3d 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (discussing duty of motorists to warn following creation of a roadway hazard)
- Romero v. Brady, 5 N.E.3d 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (duty owed by motorists to other motorists and use of notice pleading)
- Baker v. Fenneman & Brown Props., LLC, 793 N.E.2d 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (general rule on duty to aid or rescue and exceptions)
- City of Fort Wayne v. Parrish, 32 N.E.3d 275 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (negligence per se based on statutory violation where statute protects relevant class and harm)
- Cook v. Whitsell-Sherman, 796 N.E.2d 271 (Ind. 2003) (legislative determination of negligence per se and protected classes)