ILNews

COA reverses judgment for apartment manager in negligence case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In ruling on a slip-and-fall case involving injury occurring in an apartment complex parking lot during the winter, the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that there are not any Indiana cases with an identical fact pattern, so they looked to a similar Missouri case for guidance.

In Brenda Bell v. Grandville Cooperative, Inc., et al., No. 49A04-1101-CT-2, Brenda Bell appealed the summary judgment in favor of Grandville Cooperative and Kirkpatrick Management Co. in her personal injury negligence action against Grandville. Bell went to her daughter’s apartment complex around 4 p.m. Feb. 21, 2007, to babysit her grandchild. The apartment was owned and managed by Grandville. Piles of snow had been melting during the day and refreezing at night for several days, including the area where Bell parked. The management knew of the issue and checked out areas for ice, but did not see any ice in the area Bell parked around 5 p.m.

That night, when Bell was leaving the complex, she fell on ice by her car and was injured.

The COA judges cited various cases involving negligence and weather-related injuries, but none of those cases contained similar facts as the instant case. In this case, there was an established pattern of ice forming in the apartment complex for several days, but the managers did nothing to counteract the possibility of ice forming between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m.

Citing Braun v. George C. Doering Inc., 937 S.W.2d 371, 373 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995), a very similar case out of Missouri, the Indiana judges concluded that there is a question of fact as to whether Grandville breached its duty to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. In the Missouri case, the court held that defendants can’t avoid liability by simply claiming they had no actual knowledge that the particular piece of ice the plaintiff stepped on had formed that evening.

“In other words, there is a question of fact as to whether Grandville had actual or constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition on the premises — which does not require that they knew of the actual formation of the ice patch Bell slipped upon — and whether it acted reasonably in response to such knowledge,” wrote Judge Michael Barnes.

The judges were also not prepared to say as a matter of law that an apartment complex’s duty to maintain safe premises only runs during the regular working hours of the complex’s maintenance staff. They reversed summary judgment for Grandville and remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT