Carol Walters v. JS Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Eagle Aircraft , 81 N.E.3d 1160 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                              FILED
    Sep 07 2017, 8:03 am
    CLERK
    Indiana Supreme Court
    Court of Appeals
    and Tax Court
    ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
    Michael E. Polen, Jr.                                      Douglas B. Bates
    Dyer, Indiana                                              Chelsea R. Stanley
    Jeffersonville, Indiana
    Zachary M. VanVactor
    Louisville, Kentucky
    IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
    Carol Walters,                                             September 7, 2017
    Appellant-Plaintiff,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
    64A03-1702-CT-421
    v.                                                 Appeal from the Porter Superior
    Court
    JS Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Eagle                              The Honorable Mary R. Harper,
    Aircraft,                                                  Judge
    Appellee-Defendant                                         Trial Court Cause No.
    64D05-1410-CT-8841
    Altice, Judge.
    Case Summary
    [1]   Carol Walters attended an open house at JS Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Eagle Aircraft
    (JS Aviation) and fell as she walked through a doorway from the pilot’s lounge
    to the hangar. Just after the threshold was a five-and-one-quarter inch step
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017                Page 1 of 8
    down into the hangar that she did not notice. Walters filed suit against JS
    Aviation for injuries resulting from her fall, and JS Aviation sought summary
    judgment, which the trial court granted. On appeal, Walters argues that
    summary judgment was improperly granted.
    [2]   We reverse and remand.
    Facts & Procedural History
    [3]   JS Aviation operates a flight school at the Porter County Regional Airport,
    which Walters’s husband attended. On the morning of April 26, 2014, Walters,
    her husband, and her seven-year-old grandson arrived early at JS Aviation for
    an open house. They entered at the front of the pilot’s lounge. On the other
    side of the lounge was the entrance to the hangar through a set of double doors.
    These doors were usually kept closed but were opened wide into the lounge that
    day for the event. When the doors were open like this, it was customary for JS
    Aviation to place chairs in front of the doors with signs on them warning people
    to watch their step. Because Walters arrived to the event early, the chairs were
    not in place yet.
    [4]   Shortly after their arrival, Walters’s grandson saw a plane in the hangar and
    walked in that direction. The hangar was brightly lit, while the lounge was
    much more dim. Walters followed a few steps behind her grandson as she
    looked straight ahead toward him and the plane. She did not notice that there
    was a step down into the hangar. Nor did she see warning signs on one of the
    opened doors and on the floor. As she passed through the doorway, Walters
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017   Page 2 of 8
    missed the step down and fell.1 Walters acknowledged that if she had looked
    down at that exact moment, she would have seen the step. Walters, however,
    perceived the floor surface as “one flat level” extending from the lounge into the
    hanger. Appellant’s Appendix at 134.
    [5]   The step down to the hangar is five-and-one-quarter inches and occurs within a
    few inches of the threshold on the hangar-side of the doors. Facing up on the
    floor, just before the step, is a red sign with white letters stating:
    !!!CAUTION!!!
    WATCH YOUR STEP
    STEP UP
    
    Id. at 82.
    The wording is oriented to be read from the hangar but is also visible
    from inside the lounge. There was a similar red warning sign placed about eye
    level on one of the white doors that was opened into the lounge. Another sign
    on the wall of the lounge, warning of a step down, was obscured by the open
    door. Further, on either side of the silver, metal threshold and step lay black
    nonslip mats. Walters described these mats as appearing to be one carpet.
    [6]   On October 8, 2014, Walters filed the instant action alleging premises liability
    and seeking damages for injuries she sustained from the fall.2 Two years later,
    1
    Later that day, Walters posted on social media about going to the airport and her fall: “Well, I went with
    Danny and Mason to Valparaiso airport. So excited I didn’t watch my step and fell. Hurt my ankle. Going
    to drop off Mason go to ER. I’m so mad. Had a nice day planned for us.” Appellant’s Appendix at 75.
    2
    Walters has not alleged that the step was in violation of any construction standard or building code.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017                           Page 3 of 8
    JS Aviation moved for summary judgment. The trial court held a hearing on
    January 9, 2016, and thereafter issued an order granting summary judgment in
    favor of JS Aviation. Walters now appeals.
    Discussion & Decision
    [7]   We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, in the same way as the trial
    court. Hughley v. State, 
    15 N.E.3d 1000
    , 1003 (Ind. 2014). We will affirm such
    a ruling only if, after drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-
    moving party, the designated evidence shows that there is no genuine issue as to
    any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
    law. 
    Id. “A fact
    is ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the
    case, and an issue is ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’
    differing accounts of the truth, or if the undisputed material facts support
    conflicting reasonable inferences.” 
    Id. (quoting Williams
    v. Tharp, 
    914 N.E.2d 756
    , 761 (Ind. 2009)).
    [8]   A summary judgment movant bears the initial burden of demonstrating the
    absence of any genuine issue of fact on a determinative issue. 
    Id. If the
    movant
    does so, the non-movant then bears the burden of coming forward with
    contrary evidence showing an issue for the trier of fact. 
    Id. We must
    carefully
    review a grant of summary judgment to ensure that a party was not improperly
    denied its day in court. 
    Id. [9] To
    prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a duty owed by
    the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) an injury to the
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017    Page 4 of 8
    plaintiff proximately caused by the breach. Brown v. Buchmeier, 
    994 N.E.2d 291
    ,
    294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). Summary judgment is generally inappropriate in
    negligence cases because issues of contributory negligence, causation, and
    reasonable care are fact sensitive and more appropriately left for the trier of fact.
    Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc., 
    815 N.E.2d 522
    , 527 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).
    Nonetheless, a defendant is entitled to summary judgment when the undisputed
    material facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff’s case. 
    Brown, 994 N.E.2d at 294
    . Further, although the question of breach is usually one for the
    trier of fact, “if any reasonable jury would conclude that a specific standard of
    care was or was not breached, the question of breach becomes a question of law
    for the court.” 
    Id. (quoting Cox
    v. Paul, 
    828 N.E.2d 907
    , 911 (Ind. 2005)).
    [10]   In this case, the parties agree that Walters was JS Aviation’s business invitee
    and, thus, Section 343 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts applies.
    A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused
    to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but only if, he
    (a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would
    discover the condition, and should realize that it involves
    an unreasonable risk of harm to such invitees, and
    (b) should expect that they will not discover or realize the
    danger, or will fail to protect themselves against it, and
    (c) fails to exercise reasonable care to protect them against
    the danger.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017      Page 5 of 8
    Yost v. Wabash Coll., 
    3 N.E.3d 509
    , 515 (Ind. 2014). Under Indiana law, it is
    well-settled that, although a landowner must exercise reasonable care for the
    safety of invitees, the landowner is not an insurer of the invitee’s safety. Schulz
    v. Kroger Co., 
    963 N.E.2d 1141
    , 1144 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
    [11]   “Conditions posing only a reasonable risk of harm do not trigger a landowner’s
    duty to protect and cannot support a finding of premises liability against a
    landowner.” Pickens v. Wal-Mart Stores E., LP, 
    2015 WL 4997064
    (N.D. Ind.
    Aug. 20, 2015). In granting summary judgment in favor of JS Aviation, the
    trial court appears to have concluded as a matter of law that “an unexpected
    step down is not an ‘unreasonable risk of harm.’” Appellant’s Appendix at 12.
    We cannot agree. Steps and stairs are an everyday occurrence, and invitees are
    generally expected to see them and know how to use them. However, under
    the specific facts of a particular case, a step’s character, location, or surrounding
    conditions may create an unreasonable risk of harm to an invitee. See Milby v.
    Pace Pontiac, Inc., 
    176 So. 2d 554
    , 556 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1965); Bertrand v. Alan
    Ford, Inc., 
    537 N.W.2d 185
    , 188-190 (Mich. 1995).
    [12]   In this case, it is notable that JS Aviation thought this step enough of a hazard
    to call for multiple warnings. Indeed, this step down occurred in an unlikely
    spot – almost immediately after the threshold. There were also nonslip mats on
    either side of the step, which led Walters to perceive the floor as “one flat level”
    surface extending from the lounge into the hangar. Appellant’s Appendix at 134.
    Additionally, the lighting between the lounge and the hangar was significantly
    different. We conclude that these circumstances present an issue of fact
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017   Page 6 of 8
    regarding whether the step presented an unreasonable risk of harm to invitees.
    For these same reasons, a question of fact exists regarding whether JS Aviation
    should have anticipated that an invitee would not see the step.
    [13]   We are left to determine whether, as a matter of law, JS Aviation exercised
    reasonable care to protect invitees against the danger posed by the step. The
    record establishes that warning signs were attached to the ground next to the
    hangar side of the threshold and on the open door. Both warned:
    “!!!CAUTION!!! WATCH YOUR STEP”.3 Appellant’s Appendix at 80, 82.
    Had the doors been closed, as they usually were, it is likely Walters would have
    observed the eye-level warning sign on the door. With the doors opened into
    the lounge, however, the sign on the door was off to the side and not as obvious
    to someone walking from the lounge to the brightly-lit hangar. This is likely
    why JS Aviation usually chose to put chairs with additional signage in front of
    the open doors during events.
    [14]   Viewing the facts and inferences most favorable to Walters, we find them
    adequate to present triable issues of fact as to whether JS Aviation breached its
    duty of reasonable care and was a contributing cause to Walters’s injuries.
    Thus, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.
    [15]   Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
    3
    While the signs also indicated that it was a step up rather than a step down, there is no indication that this
    inaccuracy was a factor in causing Walters’s fall.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017                           Page 7 of 8
    Kirsch, J. and Mathias, J., concur.
    Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 64A03-1702-CT-421 | September 7, 2017   Page 8 of 8