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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT