ILNews

Summary judgment affirmed for casino in collapsing chair suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The manufacturer of a chair that came down on a patron’s leg as she sat on it appealed the denial of its summary judgment on the woman’s complaint, arguing the northern Indiana casino shouldn’t have been granted summary judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Friday, but ordered more proceedings on Horseshoe Casino’s third-party complaint against Gasser Chair Co.

Marlene Nordengreen was at Horseshoe Casino when the chair she sat on while playing a slot machine collapsed down and hit the back of her leg, injuring her. The chair uses a gas cylinder for height adjustment, and the cylinder on her chair appeared to fail. The casino inspected the chairs daily, and Gasser gave Horseshoe no warning about what might happen if the gas cylinder failed.

In Gasser Chair Company, Inc. v. Marlene J. Nordengreen, Horseshoe Hammond, LLC, d/b/a Horseshoe Casino, 45A03-1210-CT-435, Gasser argued the trial court shouldn’t have granted summary judgment for the casino because it didn’t provide evidence the Gasser chair was the proximate cause of Nordengreen’s injury, the court didn’t apply the correct standard of care by Horseshoe to its invitees, and there were issues of fact as to Horseshoe’s knowledge of a defect on its premises.

“We decline to accept Gasser’s apparent premise that evidence of one element of a tort is necessarily required on summary judgment in order to negate a different element. Specifically, we decline to hold a premises owner’s knowledge of a dangerous condition on its premises cannot be determined without first knowing the dangerous condition was the ‘sole proximate cause’ of an injury,” Judge Melissa May wrote.

The trial court noted that other chairs at the casino had failed before the incident with Nordengreen and none of those problems caused injuries to patrons. Gasser didn’t demonstrate the casino had actual knowledge the chair was dangerous nor did it have constructive knowledge.

The judges ordered more proceedings on Horseshoe’s third-party complaint against Gasser alleging negligence, breach of contract and breach of warranty. The trial court in a footnote said by granting summary judgment for Horseshoe, it rendered moot the casino’s third-party complaint. But the breach of contract and breach of warranty claims remain, so the trial court should resolve these issues, the appeals court ruled.

 

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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT