Ricky L. Baker and Victoria Baker v. Fall Creek Housing Partners, LLC (mem. dec.), 49A02-1605-CT-1060

On September 24, 2012 Ricky Baker, an employee of Waste Management, was injured when a wheeled trash compactor rolled on a slight driveway grade and crushed his hand while he was moving containers to his truck.
Bakers sued several parties; discovery established the property owner at the accident site was Fall Creek, which was substituted as a defendant.
Waste Management had a Periodic Services Agreement obligating it to provide equipment, supervise safety, and perform waste collection at owner properties.
Fall Creek moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted it and entered final judgment March 7, 2016. The Bakers’ motion to correct error was denied.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the danger from wheeled containers on a slight slope was known and obvious to Ricky and (2) Fall Creek did not retain sufficient control over the operative details of the work to incur liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Fall Creek is liable for Ricky's injuries as premises owner despite Waste Management being the contractor	Baker: Fall Creek controlled the instrumentality of harm by placing/moving the wheeled compactor onto a slope; summary judgment inappropriate because owner retained control	Fall Creek: Landowner not liable for contractor's employee doing contractor work; hazard (wheeled containers on an incline) was obvious and known to Ricky	Held: Affirmed summary judgment for Fall Creek — danger was known/obvious to Ricky and Fall Creek did not retain sufficient control over the operative details to create liability

Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (summary judgment standard and review)
Pelak v. Ind. Indus. Servs., Inc., 831 N.E.2d 765 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (premises-owner liability and control over work by independent contractor)
Merrill v. Knauf Fiber Glass GmbH, 771 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (application of Restatement §§343 and 343A to contractor-employee injuries)
Zawacki v. U.S.X., 750 N.E.2d 410 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (comparative knowledge of landowner and contractor employee relevant to liability)
Smith v. Baxter, 796 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2003) (comparative knowledge factored into breach analysis under §§343/343A)
Ozinga Transp. Sys., Inc. v. Mich. Ash Sales, Inc., 676 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (known/obvious danger bars premises liability absent anticipation of harm)
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Lohman, 661 N.E.2d 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (premises owner not liable where contractor employee better positioned to discover hazard)