According to court records in the case, the question was whether the trial court erred, even though the evidence tended to show the plaintiff, as a business invitee, knew about the dangerous condition on the floor.

The appellate court justices ruled there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the owner of the property should have anticipated the plaintiff’s harm, despite her knowledge of the danger. Therefore, the trial court’s ruling was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

The incident in question occurred in January 2011. The plaintiff’s husband was a patient at the defendant hospital. She had visited him there numerous times on previous occasions. During these visits, her husband would request from her a drink of water. She would oblige, and when he was finished, he would give the glass back to her, and she would return it to the table from which she had gotten it.

On one occasion, the plaintiff was returning the glass of water back to the table when she tripped over wires that were running along the floor underneath the table. This resulted in a severe injury to the plaintiff.

Later, during a deposition, she was asked whether she had to walk over the wires to get the water. She said she did. Asked whether she stepped over them, the plaintiff replied no, she simply walked over them. She agreed with a defense lawyer that if she had looked down when returning the glass of water, she “probably” would have seen the wires.

Unfortunately, while the plaintiff hired a law firm to represent her in a claim of negligence, the attorney failed to file the Indiana personal injury lawsuit within the relevant statute of limitations. She subsequently filed a complaint for legal malpractice against the law firm. The law firm moved for summary judgment. In granting that request, the trial court noted that to prove causation in a claim of legal malpractice, the plaintiff needed to show that but for the law firm’s negligence, the outcome of the personal injury lawsuit against the hospital would have been more favorable. Therefore, she had to prove the hospital breached its duty to her as a business invitee.

The trial court ruled the plaintiff failed to meet her burden in showing a genuine issue of material fact existed about whether she would have obtained a more favorable outcome. The court noted the legal malpractice claim required her to prove “a case-within-a-case.” The law firm had to show that even if it had filed the claim against the hospital in a timely manner, the plaintiff would have been no better off than in the situation in which its alleged negligence placed her. Thus, if the law firm could show the hospital didn’t breach its duty of care – i.e., the hazard was open and obvious – it wouldn’t have mattered if the lawsuit was timely filed.

The plaintiff needed to show the hospital owed her a duty, it breached the duty, and her injury was proximately caused by that breach. Indiana’s Restatement of Torts holds that landowners are liable for harm to invitees if – and only if – the landowner knew or should have known about the dangerous condition and should have realized it posed an unreasonable risk of harm. Plaintiffs must also show the landowner should have expected invitees would not discover the danger or would fail to protect themselves from that danger, and the landowner failed to exercise reasonable care in protecting invitees.

Here, the plaintiff testified that she had seen the wires and walked over them once, and presumably she would have seen them again had she looked down. Thus, there was no question the plaintiff knew about the hazard. However, the appeals court ruled the trial court never got to the issue of whether the landowner could have and should have anticipated the dangerous condition would cause physical harm to an invitee, notwithstanding its obvious or known danger.

Therefore, the case was remanded back to the trial court for further consideration.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Roumbos v. Vazanellis, Feb. 24, 2017, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: Fair Stage Collapse Not Foreseeable, Indiana Appeals Court Rules, Feb. 16, 2017, Munster Injury Lawyer Blog

Back in 2014, attorneys for several of those injured and relatives of some killed reached a $50 million settlement against 19 of 20 defendants, including the state of Indiana, which paid $11 million. The details of how that settlement was paid out (which plaintiffs received what) was kept confidential. It was noteworthy not just for the size of the damages awarded, but also for the fact it was the first time in Indiana a lesbian widow received a settlement for the wrongful death of her wife.

The incident occurred in August 2011 when the opening act had just finished, and Sugarland was preparing to take the stage. A large gust of wind from an approaching severe thunderstorm hit the stage’s temporary roof structure, which caused it to collapse, landing on many in the crowd. The issue of foreseeability was raised because there were numerous reports, notices, and warnings throughout the day of the concert from the National Weather Service, indicating that severe thunderstorms were likely. These messages were received by state fair officials through the automated text messaging system.

In this most recent claim, the plaintiffs accused 35 defendants – including the security company – of playing some role in failing to act in shutting down the concert and protecting concertgoers. The plaintiffs alleged the security company owed a duty of care to both the band and those attending the concert.

Court records indicate there was no written contract between the state fair and the security company, but the fair hired the security company for the purpose of fulfilling the fair’s security obligations.

At around 6:30 p.m., the executive director for the fair called for an impromptu meeting because it appeared the bad weather was coming in close to the show time. The security company was not asked to attend that meeting, nor did it. The meeting was held about 1.5 hours later, and those involved decided to delay the show. However, the band didn’t want to delay the show. The state fair again held another meeting and again asked the band to delay. The band again refused. However, the security company wasn’t consulted on this. The state fair representatives later said they believed the band had the final say.

State fair representatives then went on stage and told the crowd that the show would go on but that they may need to halt it midway through. The state police captain was surprised by this and believed the show needed to be called off immediately. He then said to his colleagues, “We’re calling this off right now.” It was just before that announcement could be made that the stage collapsed due to the high wind.

The trial court granted the security firm’s motion for summary judgment, finding as a matter of law it owed no duty of care to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether the security company owed a duty of care to them. However, the appellate court affirmed.

Generally, in order to prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff needs to show the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the defendant breached that duty, and an injury to the plaintiff resulted from that breach. Absent duty, there can be no breach.

In this case, the court held that the duty was contingent on the foreseeability of the incident. Here, the court noted that the security company was never consulted as a decision-maker in the determination of whether the concert should be canceled or delayed. Furthermore, evidence was presented to indicate most security firms come to the stage assuming it is properly constructed and inspected. Possible stage collapse isn’t something most security firms contemplate, and thus, the company had no duty.

However, Indiana personal injury and wrongful death claims against other defendants may still proceed.

Indiana Injury Attorney Burton A. Padove handles personal injury claims throughout northern Indiana, including Highland, Gary and Hammond. Additional Resources: Jill et al v. ESG Security Inc., Dec. 27, 2016, Indiana Court of Appeals

More Blog Entries: Wrongful Death Lawsuit: INDOT Liable for Fatal Indiana Crash, Jan. 16, 2017, Highland Injury Attorney Blog