Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Premises liability is an area of Indiana law that determines when a property owner or occupier (such as a business) may be responsible for injuries that occur on their land. These claims can arise from many situations, including slip-and-falls, dangerous conditions, fights, assaults or other unexpected incidents.
Premises liability cases, regardless of the type of hazard, usually involve negligence claims in which two legal questions are especially important:
1) Whether the property owner had a duty to protect visitors from the type of harm that occurred,
2) and whether the owner’s actions (or inaction) actually contributed to the specific injury, a concept known as “proximate cause.”
Both of these questions depend heavily on foreseeability, which generally deals with what risks a property owner could reasonably anticipate.
Understanding how Indiana courts approach duty, proximate cause and foreseeability is crucial, because these issues often determine whether a property owner is responsible for an injury.
Two types of claims
Not all premises liability cases are treated the same. Indiana law generally distinguishes between:
• Claims involving physical conditions of the property, such as snow, ice, holes, broken railings or other hazards;
• And claims arising from incidents that occur on the property, including assaults, shootings, altercations or other unexpected acts committed by third parties.
Foreseeability and duty
Whether a duty or responsibility exists is a question of law for the court to decide. Therefore, before a property owner can be held liable, a court must first determine whether the owner owed a duty to protect the injured person. In Indiana, duty is evaluated at a broad, policy level.
When looking at foreseeability for purposes of duty:
• The question is whether the general type of harm was reasonably foreseeable.
• courts do not focus on the details of the specific incident; and
• judges, not juries, decide whether a duty exists as a matter of law.
Importantly, courts often consider whether there were prior similar incidents at the property. If there were none, Indiana courts are less likely to conclude that the harm was foreseeable enough to create a duty.
Foreseeability and proximate cause
Whether an act or omission proximately caused an injury is generally a question of fact for the jury to determine, with certain exceptions. Generally, if a duty exists, the fact-finder (jury or court) then examines proximate cause, which looks at whether the property owner’s conduct played a meaningful role in causing the particular injury.
The concept of foreseeability appears again here, but in a much more fact-
specific way:
• The fact-finder reviews what was happening on the property at the time of the incident.
• The fact-finder considers whether the injury was a natural and probable result of the circumstances.
• The fact-finder considers whether prior similar incidents exist to serve as evidence of known risk.
Similar incidents matter
As shown above, across both the duty and proximate cause stages, Indiana courts pay close attention to whether the property has experienced similar incidents in the past in their foreseeability analyses.
A history of similar incidents may show that a risk was known or reasonably expected whereas a lack of similar incidents may suggest that the harm was too unpredictable or remote for a property owner to anticipate.
Conclusion
The outcome of a premises liability case in Indiana often hinges on whether a property owner should have anticipated or foreseen a particular type of harm and whether their actions played a meaningful role in causing the injury. By understanding how courts use foreseeability to analyze both duty and proximate cause, and how prior similar incidents factor into both questions, one can better understand how Indiana courts determine responsibility when injuries occur on someone’s property. If you are involved in a premises liability matter, an attorney can help evaluate these considerations and any associated liability.•
__________
Llewellyn is an attorney with Riley Bennett Egloff LLP.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.