ILNews

COA split over reversing summary judgment in slip-and-fall case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals was divided Wednesday over whether a Merrillville store failed to preserve its issue of prejudice by opposing summary judgment granted to two companies in a negligence lawsuit filed by a woman who fell on ice in front of the northern Indiana Pier 1 Imports store.

Carolyn Harris fell on an ice-covered sidewalk in front of the Pier 1 store as an employee was salting the sidewalk. Pier 1’s lease agreement with Acadia Merrillville Realty requires Acadia keep the sidewalk free from ice and snow. Acadia contracted with Boyd Construction Company to provide that work. Harris and her husband sued the three companies, which all filed for summary judgment. The trial court ruled Acadia and Boyd didn’t breach their respective duties of care and granted summary judgment for them. The court denied Pier 1’s motion, as well as its motion to correct error.

In Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., v. Acadia Merrillville Realty, L.P. and Boyd Construction Company, Inc., 45A03-1207-CT-318, Acadia and Boyd argued Pier 1 lacks standing to challenge the awards because it failed to preserve the issue of prejudice by objecting to Acadia’s and Boyd’s motions or advising the trial court of an intent to allocate fault to Acadia and Boyd as nonparties.

“Because Pier 1 did not have an opportunity to object to Acadia’s and Boyd’s dismissal prior to the court’s ruling on their motions for summary judgment, we conclude that Pier 1 has standing to appeal,” Judge Cale Bradford wrote for the majority, which included Judge Patricia Riley.

The majority went on to find that whether Acadia was discharged of its duty of care merely by contracting with Boyd is a question for the jury to decide. And, because there is evidence that additional salting was necessary after Boyd had already salted the sidewalk, a jury could reasonably infer that Boyd failed to exercise reasonable care in performing the snow and ice removal services, Bradford wrote.

Judge Elaine Brown dissented, believing Pier 1 had a practical opportunity to object to the motions for summary judgment by Acadia and Boyd prior to their dismissal. She cited U-Haul Intern Inc. v. Nulls Machine and Mfg. Shop, 736 N.E.2d 271, 280 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), Nationwide Ins. Co. v. Parmer, 958 N.E.2d 802, 807 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), and the Indiana Supreme Court opinions upon which those decisions rely to support her decision that Pier 1 waived its claim for appeal.

 

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT