Winfrey v. NLMP, INC.
963 N.E.2d 609
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- NLMP owns a building; Witham leases space for a medical office; Winfrey attended a doctor’s appointment and parked in the lot adjacent to a sidewalk and grassy embankment to a retention pond; there were no signs, fences, curbs, or barriers alerting visitors to the pond’s proximity; Winfrey’s vehicle became blocked in, backed over the sidewalk, and slid into the pond, escaping through the driver’s window with injuries; Winfrey sued for negligence in 2008 seeking medical costs, pain and suffering, and truck loss; the trial court granted summary judgment for NLMP and Witham in 2011 after considering an architect’s affidavit designated by Winfrey; Appellees cross-appealed alleging improper consideration of designated evidence; the appellate court reverses and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Winfrey was an invitee or licensee at the time of the incident | Winfrey remained an invitee during the attempted exit | Winfrey’s actions transformed him into a licensee, reducing the owner’s duty | Winfrey remained an invitee as a matter of law; status did not change to licensee. |
| Whether the trial court correctly determined the duty of care and any breach applicable to an invitee | A duty of care existed and breach can be inferred from the circumstances | Whether duty was breached is a question of fact; may be law if undisputed | Breach is not determined as a matter of law; questions of reasonableness remain for the jury. |
| Whether the designated evidence supports an inference of a dangerous condition | Scott's affidavit shows dangerous conditions (slippery embankment, lack of barriers, deep pond) | There was no evidence of a dangerous condition; summary judgment warranted | There is designated evidence of dangerous conditions; summary judgment not warranted on this basis. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion to strike Scott's affidavit | Affidavit would be admissible at trial and is probative | Affidavit was untimely and unreliable | Issue moot after remand; decision on strike not ripe. |
Key Cases Cited
- Markle v. Hacienda Mexican Rest., 570 N.E.2d 969 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (defines invitee status and scope of the invitation; duty to keep premises safe within scope of invitation)
- Douglass v. Irvin, 549 N.E.2d 368 (Ind.1990) (Restatement view of invitee duties and dangers on land)
- Wright Corp. v. Quack, 526 N.E.2d 216 (Ind.Ct.App.1988) (summary judgment standards in negligence cases; inference of dangerous condition must be established)
- Scott County Family YMCA, Inc. v. Hobbs, 817 N.E.2d 603 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) (plaintiff must designate evidence of a dangerous condition; mere accident not enough)
- Hale v. Community Hospital of Indianapolis, Inc., 567 N.E.2d 842 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (noting the necessity of proof of dangerous condition when applicable)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind.2004) (summary judgment in negligence requires undisputed facts and single inference for law)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind.2003) (duty question is a matter of law)
- Ill. Bulk Carrier, Inc. v. Jackson, 908 N.E.2d 248 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (summary judgment appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact)