Steak `N Shake No. 315 v. Ronald E. Smith (mem. dec.)
02A03-1604-SC-890
| Ind. Ct. App. | Feb 17, 2017Background
- On July 6, 2015, Smith was injured when a wall-mounted paper towel dispenser/trash can unit at Steak ’n Shake fell and struck his leg while he attempted to draw a towel. He suffered bleeding and bruising but did not seek medical treatment.
- Smith sued in Allen Superior Court Small Claims seeking $6,000; trial was by bench and Smith proceeded pro se. The Restaurant retained counsel shortly before trial and sought a continuance for limited discovery.
- At trial Smith testified an employee told him the unit’s locking/latching mechanism was known to be broken; the trial court expressly found that testimony credible and found actual knowledge.
- After trial the court held the case under advisement for 60 days for settlement discussions; counsel changed firms and the Restaurant did not receive timely notice of the February 10, 2016 $250 judgment. The trial court later granted an extension to appeal due to lack of actual notice.
- The trial court concluded the Restaurant breached its duty to invitees by failing to remedy or warn of a known defect that foreseeably could cause the unit to fall, and awarded Smith $250. The Restaurant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence that the Restaurant had actual or constructive knowledge of the defective latch | Smith: testified an employee told him employees knew the latch was broken; court found testimony credible | Restaurant: claimed Smith failed to prove knowledge and offered contrary evidence (not in record) | Held: Sufficient evidence of actual knowledge based on Smith’s credible testimony; judgment affirmed |
| Whether the hazard was open and obvious or the invitee’s fault | Smith: defect not obvious; invitees would not reasonably be expected to discover/avoid the danger | Restaurant: argued the defect/danger was not shown to be foreseeable and it was equally possible Smith caused the injury | Held: Court found the defect created a foreseeable risk and was not shown to be open/obvious; speculation about plaintiff’s fault rejected |
| Whether procedural error in service of judgment warranted relief | Smith: (n/a) | Restaurant: sought to set aside judgment and extend time to appeal due to lack of notice | Held: Trial court denied motion to set aside but granted extension under T.R.72(E) because counsel lacked actual notice; appeal timely brought |
Key Cases Cited
- Trinity Homes, LLC v. Fang, 848 N.E.2d 1065 (Ind. 2006) (bench-trial review for clear error; appellate deference to factfinder)
- City of Dunkirk Water & Sewage Dep’t v. Hall, 657 N.E.2d 115 (Ind. 1995) (view facts and reasonable inferences in light most favorable to judgment)
- Douglass v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. 1990) (landowner duty to invitees; open-and-obvious defense)
- Harradon v. Schlamadinger, 913 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of duty to business invitees and requirement to show actual or constructive knowledge)