ILNews

Lawyers worry about impact of court decision on premises liability

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The fatal shooting of a guest in a Speedway motel by a former employee and the resulting civil litigation leaves the Indiana Supreme Court to decide whether arguments of common law or a 1980s statute governs the premises owner’s degree of liability. Trial and defense lawyers are paying keen attention.

In Mary E. Santelli, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli v. Abu M. Rahmatullah, individually, and d/b/a Super 8 Motel, 49S04-1212-CT-667, justices were faced with competing arguments Feb. 14 on the supremacy of the Comparative Fault Act or the very duty doctrine. Santelli drew amicus briefs from the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana and the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

In October 2005, James Santelli was a guest at a Super 8 motel owned by Abu Rahmatullah. Santelli was murdered by Joseph Pryor, a former hotel maintenance worker with a criminal past who retained a master keycard after his employment. Pryor confessed to robbing and killing Santelli and was sentenced to 85 years in prison.

Santelli’s estate sued Rahmatullah and the hotel, arguing, among other things, that the hotel was negligent for not checking Pryor’s background and for failing to take adequate safeguards against crime. A Marion Superior jury calculated damages for the estate at $2.07 million. Under Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, Indiana Code 34-51-2-1, the jury assigned 97 percent of fault to Pryor, 1 percent to Santelli and 2 percent to Rahmatullah, who thus owed the estate $41,400 under the verdict.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, ordering the jury instructed on the very duty doctrine, which holds that a premises owner owes a level of reasonable care to protect patrons against foreseeable crime. The appellate panel said the Comparative Fault Act didn’t abrogate the very duty doctrine, holding instead that “the joint and

several liability rule as a component of the very duty doctrine is appropriate and just.”

“That decision was a matter of public policy,” James R. Fisher of Miller & Fisher LLC argued on behalf of the estate in support of affirming the Court of Appeals’ remand for a new trial. Fisher said courts have long established that under the very duty doctrine, proprietors owe a reasonable level of care to protect patrons. The question before the court, he told the justices, was “whether the public policy has now changed.”

Danford Due of Due Doyle Fanning LLP argued on behalf of Rahmatullah that the public policy was made clear when the Legislature amended the Comparative Fault Act in 1995 to include intentional conduct of nonparties, including those who commit crimes.

“The jury in this case got it right; the Legislature got it right,” Due said. “The evidence was overwhelmingly favorable” that the hotel exercised reasonable care, he said, noting there was no evidence the keycard was used in the crime or that the hotel, as Fisher argued, “was an open nest of criminals.”

Justice Loretta Rush challenged Due on those assertions, noting that the trial court on a motion to correct error found that the evidence didn’t support the jury’s allocation of fault. “The trial court did take a look at it after the verdict came in and disagreed with what you are saying,” she said.

Due said there was no evidence of forced entry, and that the hotel employed various locking systems and other safeguards. “There was a lot of evidence that there was adequate security,” he said.
 

kite Kite

Donald B. Kite Sr. chairs the amicus committee for DTCI and said how the justices decide Santelli will have broad ramifications. “If the Court of Appeals decision stands, those who had minimal responsibility will be held responsible for more than their share of damages.”

That could extend to any number of premises open to the public. “You can certainly see insurers excluding coverage or raising premiums, and that certainly has an effect on everyone,” Kite said.

Under the Comparative Fault Act, he said, “We’re just asking jurors and juries to do what we’ve been asking them to do all along.”


winingham Winingham

William Winingham wrote an amicus brief for ITLA and agreed the decision will have important consequences, but for different reasons. He said there’s a public policy interest in requiring proprietors to meet a level of care to promote public safety.

“If a hotel, for instance in this case, has a duty to use reasonable care to make sure people don’t get attacked on their property, it does not seem fair to us to blame the criminal,” Winingham said, “and shove fault onto that criminal to reduce your liability.”

“The Supreme Court is really in the best position to establish public policy,” he said. “What you want is a uniform public policy,” rather than differing results based on “whims of individual juries.”

Fisher encountered some tough questions on the foundation of the common law basis of his argument. “I don’t think anybody ever mentions the very duty doctrine; that seems to be a shorthand,” Justice Robert Rucker said. “Once you call it a doctrine, then it becomes a common law status and sort of elevates it.

“I guess my problem is, I don’t see it as a common law doctrine. I don’t see this court having adopted it; it was a principal of law that was cited, and that’s it,” Rucker said.

Fisher replied that Rubin v. Johnson, 550 N.E.2d 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990), set forth the very duty doctrine under Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) §449 as Indiana law. That section holds, “If the likelihood that a third person may act in a particular manner is the hazard or one of the hazards which makes the actor negligent, such an act whether innocent, negligent, intentionally tortious, or criminal does not prevent the actor from being liable for harm caused thereby.”

“If you’re right,” Chief Justice Brent Dickson asked Fisher, “then why did the Legislature expressly supersede that with the Comparative Fault Act?”

“I don’t believe they did,” Fisher replied. “I don’t believe that they intended, for example, that you may now defend an assault case by saying, ‘the victim brought it on himself.’”

Due argued that the very duty doctrine has never been enshrined in Indiana law. Quizzed by Dickson, Rucker and Justice Steven David on whether instructions given to jurors met the statutory requirement that they “shall” determine percentage of fault among various parties, he said he believed the instruction offered was that jurors “may” do so.

But Due said jurors knew that they could assign fault as they determined, and opposing counsel argued to jurors that the hotel should bear full liability. He pointed to Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048, 1052 (Ind. 2003), in which the Supreme Court held that allocation of fault could be applied to criminal defendants. “That’s the law in Indiana; that’s the law of this court, that’s the law of comparative fault,” Due said.

Jurors, he said, “could have allocated 100 percent of the fault to my client in this particular case had the evidence warranted it. The evidence simply did not warrant it.”•

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