ILNews

Justices: no summary judgment for grocer in negligence suit

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the denial of a supermarket’s motion for summary judgment in a negligence case, finding the company failed to carry its burden in showing that criminal activity on its premises at the time a customer was assaulted wasn’t foreseeable.

In The Kroger Co. v. Lu Ann B. Plonski, No. 49S02-0907-CV-347, Kroger Co. appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment in Lu Ann B. Plonski’s suit for damages as a result of the store’s negligence. Plonski left the store after shopping and was attacked and mugged by a man in the parking lot.

Kroger designated affidavits from the store’s risk manager, safety manager, and head cashier. The managers’ affidavits asserted that the Kroger store is located in a part of the city that has a reputation of low levels of criminal activity and in the two years before Plonski’s attack, there had only been one report of criminal activity on the store’s premises. The head cashier testified that the assailant wasn’t a guest or patron of the store.

Plonski was allowed to strike Kroger’s affidavits and argue the merits of Kroger’s summary judgment motion by including facts contained in 60 pages of police reports the two years prior that showed more than 30 responses to criminal activity on the store’s premises.

The trial court erred in granting Plonski’s motion to strike the Kroger affidavits and allowing her to introduce the police reports into evidence. The affidavits did not fail in some way to comply with Indiana Trial Rule 56.

“Affidavits submitted in support of or in opposition to a motion for summary judgment may be stricken for a variety of reasons. But a difference of opinion about what the facts are alleged to be is not one of them,” wrote Justice Robert Rucker. “In essence, the answer to a competing claim about the facts is not to strike a party’s submissions. Instead, when the submissions show that material facts are in dispute then summary judgment should be denied.”

But the police reports are not admissible because they were not properly designated. After she received the reports, Plonski didn’t ask for additional time to conduct further discovery or respond to Kroger’s submissions, and she made no effort to explain why the police reports introduced at the summary judgment hearing supported her motion to strike.

The high court focused on whether the criminal assault on Plonski was not foreseeable, a burden Kroger must prove as the party moving for summary judgment. Kroger claimed it owed no duty to protect Plonski because her injuries were caused by someone who wasn’t a patron or guest of the store. The affidavits of the store managers tell the court nothing about the criminal activity or lack thereof occurring in the store or its parking lot.

Kroger also failed to show that the facts are not in dispute on the question of breach of duty. The fact that Plonski felt safe on the many times she visited the store in the past isn’t dispositive.

“Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence actions,” wrote the justice. “In this case Kroger has persuaded us no differently.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT