963 N.E.2d 1141
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Schulzes sued Kroger for slip-and-fall injury alleging Kroger's actual or constructive knowledge of a hazardous condition in its Brownsburg store.
- Dixie fell after slipping on a clear liquid near a back Seven-Up display; McCombs arrived shortly after and stated no prior notice of a hazard.
- Kroger moved for summary judgment asserting no actual knowledge and no constructive knowledge given the short time before the fall.
- Trial court granted Kroger summary judgment; Schultzes appealed contending there were genuine issues of material fact.
- Court reviews summary-judgment standard and whether Kroger had actual or constructive knowledge; no findings of fact required; review is de novo on designated evidence.
- Court affirms summary judgment, holding Kroger neither had actual knowledge nor constructive knowledge of the hazard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kroger lacked actual and constructive knowledge of the hazard | Schultz asserts Kroger knew or should have known of the spill. | Kroger lacked actual knowledge and no constructive notice existed given the short preceding time. | No genuine issue; Kroger had no actual or constructive knowledge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Blaylock, 591 N.E.2d 624 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (definition of constructive knowledge; store has duty for hazards it would discover with ordinary care)
- Carmichael v. Kroger Co., 654 N.E.2d 1188 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (landowner not insurer of invitee safety; need knowledge of the danger to impose liability)
- Golba v. Kohl's Dept. Store, Inc., 585 N.E.2d 14 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (standard for notice of dangerous condition on premises)
- Booher v. Sheeram, LLC, 937 N.E.2d 392 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (duty to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind.1991) (business invitee status and duty of care on premises)