COA: Statute of repose doesn't bar woman's complaint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that a woman’s negligence complaint isn’t barred by a statute of repose.

In Cynthia Perdue v. Greater Lafayette Health Services d/b/a Home Hospital, No. 79A05-1011-CT-687, Cynthia Perdue tripped and fell on an inverted ramp in a parking garage owned and maintained by Home Hospital. There were no markings or warnings of the change in elevation. Perdue was injured in the fall.

She sued, claiming Home Hospital was negligent in not using ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe manner; that the company failed to actively inspect the premises to discover and fix unsafe defects; and it failed to warn of dangerous conditions created by the uneven floor in the parking garage. She claimed Home Hospital’s negligence proximately caused her injuries.

Home Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment alleging her claim was barred by Indiana Code 32-30-1-5, the statute of repose, because her injury arose out of an alleged deficiency in design or construction of the structure. That statute bars claims alleging deficiency in the design of an improvement of real property brought within the earlier of 10 years after substantial completion or 12 years after the completion and submission of plans to the owner if the action is for a deficiency in the design of the improvement. The statute also said deficiency did not mean a failure by a possessor to use reasonable care to maintain an improvement following the substantial completion of an improvement in real property.

The trial court ruled in favor of Home Hospital. Perdue argued that she doesn’t allege negligence due to an alleged deficiency in design or construction of the garage, but that her claims are based on the company’s failure to use reasonable care in maintaining its premises in a safe condition or one that protected her from harm.

This is an issue of first impression, so the judges relied on Ruddy v. Skelly, 231 P.3d 725 (Okla. Civ. App. 2009), an Oklahoma case similar to the instant one. In Ruddy, the court held that the statute of repose didn’t bar the plaintiff’s claim because it was based on common law negligence for failure to warn an invitee of a hidden danger, not liability based on design or construction defects.

The Indiana COA also cited several Indiana cases, including Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 642-43 (Ind. 1991), and Harris v. Traini, 759 N.E.2d 215, 225, (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), to reverse the lower court.

“Here, after the garage was completed and Home Hospital assumed full control of the premises, it had a duty, distinct from any duty it may have had with regard to the design and construction of the premises, either to repair dangerous conditions of the premises or to warn invitees of any danger,” wrote Judge Edward Najam.

Home Hospital hasn’t shown as a matter of law that no genuine issues of material fact exist, so it is not entitled to summary judgment. The appellate court remanded for further proceedings.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.