Santelli v. Rahmatullah

• Decision Date: 28 August 2013
• Docket Number: No. 49S04–1212–CT–667.,49S04–1212–CT–667.
• Citation: 993 N.E.2d 167
• Parties: Mary Elizabeth SANTELLI, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Abu M. RAHMATULLAH, individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel, Appellee (Defendant below).
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

993 N.E.2d 167

Mary Elizabeth SANTELLI, as Administrator of the Estate of James F. Santelli, Appellant (Plaintiff below),

v.Abu M. RAHMATULLAH, individually and d/b/a Super 8 Motel, Appellee (Defendant below).

No. 49S04–1212–CT–667.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Aug. 28, 2013.

James R. Fisher, Debra H. Miller, Miller & Fisher LLC, Indianapolis, IN, Roger L. Pardieck, Karen M. Davis, Susan Boatright, The Pardieck Law Firm, Seymour, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.

William E. Winingham, John G. Shubat, Wilson Kehoe Winingham LLC, Indianapolis,IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Indiana Trial Lawyers Association.

Danford R. Due, Scott E. Andres, Due Doyle Fanning LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

Julia B. Gelinas, Lucy R. Dollens, Frost Brown Todd LLC, Donald B. Kite, Sr., Gonzalez Saggio & Harlan LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana.

On Petition To Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A04–1011–CT–704

RUCKER, Justice.

In this negligence case we address the application of Indiana's Comparative Fault Act to the issue of fault allocation in a specific context: that in which a premises owner has a duty to protect a business invitee from the foreseeable criminal act of a third party.

Facts and Procedural History

On October 16, 2005, plaintiff James Santelli was robbed and murdered inside his room in an Indianapolis-area motel owned by defendant, Abu Rahmatullah. Santelli was a resident of Illinois and had rented a room at the motel while he worked on a local construction project. In criminal proceedings the murderer, Joseph Pryor, pleaded guilty to the murder and Class B felony robbery of Santelli and was sentenced to 85 years in the Department of Correction. See Pl's Ex. 90; Pryor v. State, No. 49A02–0709–CR–804, slip op. at 2–3, 2008 WL 1758752, at *1 (Ind.Ct.App. April 18, 2008). On April 5, 2007, Santelli's estate (“the Estate”) filed a complaint against Rahmatullah in Marion Superior Court alleging Rahmatullah breached his duty to Santelli to maintain the motel in a reasonably safe manner, causing Santelli's death. Rahmatullah asserted a defense naming Pryor as a liable non-party, and also alleging Santelli was partially responsible for his own death. The case proceeded to a five-day jury trial in July 2010.

The evidence adduced at trial showed that Rahmatullah's motel was located in a high crime area and had been the scene of four armed robberies in less than four years prior to the murder, two of which occurred within six months of Santelli's death in 2005. See Tr. at 206–09. Prostitution and drugs were prevalent at the motel to a degree that undercover police considered renting a room there. See Tr. at 414. About a month before the murder, Rahmatullah hired Pryor as a maintenance man and gave him a master keycard to the motel without inquiring into his criminal history. At the time Rahmatullah hired him, Pryor was a convicted felon, was on probation, and was the subject of an outstanding warrant for violating that probation. Pryor walked off the job after two days of work and Rahmatullah neither confiscated nor deactivated Pryor's working keycard, which remained in Pryor's possession at the time of the murder. See Tr. at 450, 451, 485–86. Although there were no signs of forced entry to Santelli's room, there was also no evidence Pryor used the keycard to gain entry. Santelli had stayed at the same motel in prior years while working on other jobs. Police and expert testimony indicated security procedures at the motel were lax. The motel's only security cameras were in the lobby and the pool area and these were not monitored. Tr. at 303–04. Rahmatullah failed to keep exterior doors consistently closed and locks in working order. Tr. at 457, 484, 499–501, 510.

After the parties rested, the Estate tendered the following final jury instruction, which the trial court denied:

If you find that the Defendant or his employees should have reasonably foreseen the criminal conduct on the premisescould result in the death of a guest, then you are to find that the Defendant is at fault for Pryor's actions as well as for the Defendant's own negligence....

Tr. at 707. Among other things, the trial court instructed the jury on negligence, incurred risk, proximate cause, non-party fault, reasonable foreseeability, a landowner's duty to invitees, and apportionment of fault. ¹

On July 16, 2010 the jury returned a verdict finding total damages in the amount of $2,070,000.00 and apportioning the fault for Santelli's death as follows: 1% to Santelli, 2% to Rahmatullah, and 97% to Pryor, resulting in an award to the Estate of $41,400.00. App. at 184–85. The trial court entered judgment on July 26, 2010. On August 25, 2010 the Estate filed its Motion to Correct Errors and for New Trial, which Rahmatullah opposed. The trial court held a hearing on the motion on September 27, 2010, during which the court directed the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law no later than October 25, 2010. On November 5, 2010, the trial court issued its findings, conclusions, and judgment granting in part and denying in part the Estate's motion and ordering a new trial limited to the issue of fault allocation.

Both parties filed notices of appeal from the trial court's order. Rahmatullah asserted the November 5 order was untimely and should be treated as deemed denied under Indiana Trial Rule 53.3 while the Estate appealed the trial court's partial denial of its motion, and from any deemed denial of the motion for untimeliness. On Rahmatullah's motion the appeals were consolidated and the parties and their amici briefed the merits. The Court of Appeals presumed the Estate's motion to correct errors was deemed denied by the trial court and then considered the merits of the parties' arguments. The Court determined that Indiana had previously employed the “very duty” doctrine, held that a jury instruction on the doctrine would be proper on retrial because the doctrine had survived the adoption of the Indiana Comparative Fault Act, and adopted the Restatement (Third) of Torts § 14 to implement the doctrine in Indiana. See Santelli v. Rahmatullah, 966 N.E.2d 661 (Ind.Ct.App.2012). The Court of Appeals also opined on the admissibility of certain evidence on retrial. We previously granted transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals. SeeAppellate Rule 58(A). We now address the status of the trial court's November 5 order and the application of Indiana's Comparative Fault Act to the facts in this case.

Discussion

I.The Trial Court's November 5, 2010 Order

The Estate's motion to correct error alleged the trial court erred by: (1) permitting the jury to allocate fault to Pryor; (2) rejecting the Estate's tendered instruction which “would have informed the jurors that they could find [Rahmatullah] liable” for Pryor's criminal act if a death caused by crime was reasonably foreseeable; and (3) excluding certain evidence—namely, of a prior criminal-police shootout at the motel and of the criminal histories of other motel employees. See App. at 190. The Estate also contended more generally that “in light of all of the evidence that was admitted, the jury's verdict allocating 1 percent of the fault to James Santelli and only 2 percent of the fault to [Rahmatullah] was against the greater weight of the evidence.” Id.

A. Timeliness of the Order

The trial court held a hearing on the Estate's motion to correct error on September 27, 2010. The trial court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order forty days later, on November 5, 2010. Trial Rule 53.3 addresses the time limitations for ruling on motions to correct error and provides in pertinent part:

(A) Time limitation for ruling on motion to correct error. In the event a court fails for forty-five (45) days to set a Motion to Correct Error for hearing, or fails to rule on a Motion to Correct Error within thirty (30) days after it was heard or forty-five (45) days after it was filed, if no hearing is required, the pending Motion to Correct Error shall be deemed denied. Any appeal shall be initiated by filing the notice of appeal under Appellate Rule 9(A) within thirty (30) days after the Motion to Correct Error is deemed denied.

(B) Exceptions. The time limitation for ruling on a motion to correct error established under Section (A) of this rule shall not apply where:

* * *

(2) The parties who have appeared or their counsel stipulate or agree on record that the time limitation for ruling set forth under Section (A) shall not apply; or

(3) The time limitation for ruling has been extended by Section (D) of this rule.

* * *

(D) Extension of time for ruling. The Judge before whom a Motion to Correct Error is pending may extend the time limitation for ruling for a period of no more than thirty (30) days by filing an entry in the cause advising all parties of the extension. Such entry must be in writing, must be noted in the Chronological Case Summary before the expiration of the initial time period for ruling set forth under Section (A), and must be served on all parties. Additional extension of time may be granted only upon application to the Supreme Court as set forth in Trial Rule 53.1(D).

Ind. Trial Rule 53.3. Rahmatullah contends that because the trial court failed to rule on the motion by October 27—within thirty days of the hearing—it was deemed denied pursuant to Rule 53.3(A). The Estate counters that the order was timely pursuant to Rule 53.3(B)(2) based on the schedule agreed to by the court and the parties.

At the close of the hearing, the trial court directed the parties to provide proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The trial court expressed the need for findings and conclusions given the complexity of the issues in this case, and the submission schedule was discussed as follows:

[Court]: ... So this is September the 27th. A couple of weeks [to prepare proposed...