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