22 N.E.3d 603
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- Handy injured when two granite countertops outside PC's store toppled onto her foot while she measured them on July 11, 2010.
- The countertops were displayed outside the front entrance, leaning against the external wall of the store under PC ownership.
- Handy initially sued PC for negligence in 2012; PC moved for summary judgment arguing Handy was a trespasser or licensee with no duty owed beyond non-wilful injury.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, concluding Handy was a trespasser with no breach by PC, even under a higher standard of care.
- On appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that genuine issues of material fact remained as to Handy’s status and PC’s duty, and reversed/remanded for trial.
- The court acknowledged procedural timeliness issues but held that, even considering designated evidence, summary judgment was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What was Handy's status on PC's premises? | Handy was an invitee or at least a licensee with permission to enter. | Handy was a trespasser or, at best, a licensee with limited duty. | Genuine issues of material fact remain regarding Handy's status. |
| Did PC breach the duty of care owed to Handy if she was an invitee? | PC owed a high duty of care and breached by dangers not adequately mitigated. | There was no breach; danger was not unknown or unreasonable given the facts. | Fact issues preclude summary judgment on breach of duty. |
| Should Handy's late response to the summary judgment motion have been considered? | Handy's response should be considered to raise genuine issues. | Response was untimely; trial court lacked discretion to accept it. | Procedural timeliness issue acknowledged, but merits still require reversal for trial on designated evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hassan v. Begley, 836 N.E.2d 303 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for genuine issues of material fact in summary judgments)
- Altevogt v. Brand, 963 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (presumption of validity of summary judgments; burden on appealing party)
- Walker v. Martin, 887 N.E.2d 125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (burden on appealing party in reviewing summary judgments)
- Desai v. Cray, 805 N.E.2d 844 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (bright-line rule for extension of time under Trial Rule 56)
- HomEq Servicing Corp. v. Baker, 883 N.E.2d 95 (Ind. 2008) (timeliness requirement for responses to summary judgment motions)
- Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (invitation vs. permission in determining invitee status)
- Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Ctr. Ltd. P'ship, 952 N.E.2d 872 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (Restatement §343A analysis regarding known/obvious dangers)
- Yates v. Johnson Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 888 N.E.2d 842 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (invitation vs. permission and invitee status framework)
- Taylor v. Duke, 713 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (store closure alone does not resolve invitee/trespasser status)
- Morningstar v. Maynard, 798 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (duty analysis and invitee/licensee distinctions in premises liability)