ILNews

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.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT