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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT