Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
An Indiana University student injured in 2018 by a falling window demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact in inferring the university’s negligence, a split Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday in reversing a lower court’s summary judgment order in favor of the university.
The court remanded the case back to Monroe Circuit Court for further proceedings.
In April 2018, student Kiera Isgrig was studying for finals in a room in Swain Hall when, without warning, a window she was sitting near fell inward and landed on her head along with the window’s frame and casing, according to court documents. The window shattered, injuring her.
After the incident, the university’s physical plant carpenter at the time could not determine what exactly caused the window to fall without warning.
In 2020, Isgrig filed a lawsuit against IU in Monroe County, alleging negligence in her complaint and relying on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which can be used to infer negligence from certain accidents that typically don’t happen without someone’s negligence, court documents state.
The university moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Isgrig failed to make a prima facie case of negligence under the premises liability standard, arguing that the university didn’t know of any issues with the window prior to the incident and that res ipsa loquitur doesn’t relieve the plaintiff of proving IU had either actual or constructive knowledge.
IU also argued that even if res ipsa loquitur applied, the university didn’t have exclusive control of the window, which is required under the doctrine.
The trial court granted summary judgment to the university.
Isgrig appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals, arguing res ipsa loquitur applies to fixtures in premises liability cases, and that the broad definition of “exclusive control” means there is at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the window was under IU’s control when it fell.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back in December 2023, at which point the university sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.
The high court accepted transfer, vacating the appellate court’s decision.
Justice Mark Massa wrote that case law allows res ipsa loquitur in premises liability cases, “[i]f [the] injury results from a fixture or other component that [others] did not or could not disturb . . . and the incident would not normally occur absent negligence[.]” Griffin, 175 N.E.3d at 816.
He stated that Isgrig did not need to first establish the elements of premises liability to apply the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Building owners, Massa said, exercise control of fixtures attached to their buildings and therefore bear responsibility if invitees are injured by defective fixtures on their land.
Massa wrote that when direct evidence of negligence is not available, plaintiffs can rely on the circumstantial evidence of res ipsa loquitur. Though the inference doesn’t secure a finding of negligence, it’s enough for a plaintiff to survive summary judgment.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Christopher Goff concurred.
Justice Derek Molter dissented with a separate opinion, which Justice Geoffrey Slaughter joined.
In his dissent, Molter writes that the court confused an inference with the sort of speculation “we typically hold is insufficient to defeat summary judgment.”
He argues that not only is there no evidence to prove IU was aware of any defect in the window, but all evidence actually suggests IU didn’t know of any defect, nor could the university be expected to know about one, according to court documents.
Molter said Isgrig hasn’t pointed to anything IU did wrong to cause the incident in order to apply res ipsa loquitur.
The case is Kiera Isgrig v. Trustees of Indiana University, 24S-CT-158.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.