City of Indianapolis Housing Authority v. Pippin, 49A02-9905-CV-379.
| Decision Date | 23 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A02-9905-CV-379.,49A02-9905-CV-379. |
| Citation | 726 N.E.2d 341 |
| Parties | The CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS HOUSING AUTHORITY d/b/a Eagle Creek Village Apartments, Appellant-Defendant, v. Anthony PIPPIN and Darlene Pippin, As Surviving Parents and Natural Guardians of Angela Michelle Pippin, a Deceased Minor, Appellees-Plaintiffs. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Julia Blackwell Gelinas, Thomas J. Campbell, Locke Reynolds LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellant.
Paul D. Ludwig, Tom Blackburn, Cohen & Malad P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellees.
The City of Indianapolis Housing Authority d/b/a Eagle Creek Village Apartments (Housing Authority) appeals the judgment of the trial court on the claim of Anthony and Darlene Pippin. It raises the following issues for review:
I. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant the Housing Authority's motion for summary judgment.
II. Whether the trial court erred in failing to grant the Housing Authority's motion for judgment on the evidence.
III. Whether the trial court erred in failing to strike portions of Darlene Pippin's affidavit.
IV. Whether the trial court erred in refusing the Housing Authority's tendered instruction about hidden defects.
We affirm.
On February 26, 1994, fourteen-year-old Angela Pippin was playing basketball with some friends at a portable basketball goal in an area paved for vehicular traffic in the parking lot of Eagle Creek Village Apartments. Around 4:40 P.M., twelve-year-old Dejuan Adams used a screwdriver to start a stolen, abandoned vehicle. He accelerated in reverse, lost control, and struck several children, including Angela. Angela died from her injuries.
The Pippins brought suit against the Housing Authority alleging that it was negligent in failing to provide a safe area for the resident children to play and in failing to rectify the persistent problem of stolen vehicles being abandoned on the property. The Housing Authority moved for summary judgment, alleging that the Pippins could not establish as a matter of law that the Housing Authority owed a duty to Angela or that its actions proximately caused her death. The trial court denied this motion. The case was tried to a jury. At the conclusion of the Pippins' case, the Housing Authority moved for judgment on the evidence, which the trial court denied. The jury awarded the Pippins $163,000 in damages. The Housing Authority now appeals.
The Housing Authority first argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for summary judgment. It argues that the Pippins failed to establish as a matter of law that the Housing Authority either owed a duty to Angela or that its actions proximately caused her injury. When reviewing the denial of a motion for summary judgment, we use the same standard as the trial court. Stevens v. Olsen, 713 N.E.2d 889, 891 (Ind.Ct.App.1999),trans. denied. We determine whether the record reveals a genuine issue of material fact and whether the trial court correctly applied the law. Keith v. Mendus, 661 N.E.2d 26, 35 (Ind.Ct.App.1996),trans. denied. We may not search the entire record to support the judgment, but may only consider that evidence which was specifically designated to the trial court. J.C. Spence & Assoc., Inc. v. Geary, 712 N.E.2d 1099, 1102 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (). We carefully scrutinize the pleadings and designated materials, construing them in a light most favorable to the non-movant. Diversified Financial Sys., Inc. v. Miner, 713 N.E.2d 293, 297 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999).
A trial court's decision on a motion for summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity. Id. The party appealing the trial court's decision on summary judgment has the burden of persuading this court that the trial court's decision was erroneous. Irvine v. Rare Feline Breeding Ctr., Inc., 685 N.E.2d 120, 123 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), trans. denied (1998). We will affirm a summary judgment ruling on any legal theory which is consistent with the designated evidence. Ashcraft v. Northeast Sullivan County Sch. Corp., 706 N.E.2d 1101, 1103 (Ind.Ct.App.1999).
The tort of negligence is comprised of three elements: 1) a duty on the part of the defendant in relation to the plaintiff; 2) a failure by the defendant to conform its conduct to the requisite standard of care; and 3) an injury to the plaintiff caused by the failure. Fawley v. Martin's Supermarkets, Inc., 618 N.E.2d 10, 12 (Ind.Ct.App.1993), trans. denied. To prevail on a motion for summary judgment in a negligence case, the defendant must establish that the undisputed material facts negate at least one element of the plaintiff's claim or that the claim is barred by an affirmative defense. Ashcraft, 706 N.E.2d at 1103. The Housing Authority claims that the undisputed facts negate both the duty and proximate cause elements.
Whether a duty to exercise care arises is governed by the relationship between the parties and is an issue of law. Fawley, 618 N.E.2d at 12. Absent a duty owed to a plaintiff by the defendant, there can be no actionable negligence. Id. When found to exist, the duty is to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances, and this duty never changes. Franklin v. Benock, 722 N.E.2d 874, 878 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). However, the standard of conduct required to meet that duty varies based on the circumstances. Id. (). To determine whether a duty exists in a particular case, we balance three factors: 1) the relationship between the parties; 2) the reasonable foreseeability of harm to the person injured; and 3) public policy concerns. Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475, 478 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996), trans. denied (1999) (citing Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991)). We now turn to these three factors.
The parties do not dispute that Angela Pippin was a resident and tenant of the Housing Authority. Her family had lived at Eagle Creek Village for about four years prior to the accident that caused her death. Thus, the parties had a landlord-tenant relationship. Generally, a landlord has a duty of reasonable care to see that the common areas or areas under his control are reasonably fit. Flott v. Cates, 528 N.E.2d 847, 848 (Ind.Ct.App.1988); Hodge v. Nor-Cen, Inc., 527 N.E.2d 1157, 1160 (Ind.Ct.App.1988), trans. denied (1989); Rossow v. Jones, 404 N.E.2d 12, 14 (Ind. Ct.App.1980). This factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty on the Housing Authority under these circumstances.
The foreseeability component of duty requires a general analysis of the broad type of plaintiff and harm involved, without regard to the facts of the actual occurrence. Goldsberry, 672 N.E.2d at 479. As we have stated previously, "In this regard, we must `examine what forces and human conduct should have appeared likely to come on the scene, and we weigh the dangers likely to flow from the challenged conduct in light of these forces and conduct.'" Wickey v. Sparks, 642 N.E.2d 262, 267 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied (1995)(quoting Webb, 575 N.E.2d at 997). The duty of reasonable care is not owed to the world at large, but is limited to those who might reasonably be foreseen as being subject to injury by a breach of the duty. Franklin, 722 N.E.2d at 879. Foreseeability does not mean that the exact hazard or precise consequence should have been foreseen, but it also does not encompass anything that might occur. Id. ().
The Housing Authority maintains that Adams' conduct in starting a stolen car and losing control of it were unforeseeable. The Housing Authority's view of the plaintiff and harm here is too cramped. The type of plaintiff harmed was a child injured while playing basketball at a basketball goal placed in an area designed for vehicular traffic. The child was injured when a vehicle struck her, killing her. It does not stretch the imagination to envision that a child playing in an area designed for and used by vehicles might be struck and injured by a vehicle. Indeed, even very young children can appreciate the dangers moving vehicles pose to pedestrians. The victim and the harm were foreseeable in this case. This factor weighs in favor of imposing a duty.
Finally, we weigh the policy implications of imposing a duty here. Such a duty would require all multi-family housing complexes to consider the safety of the areas in which resident children play. We believe this is a sound practice that should be encouraged. Apartment managers should not stand by silently while allowing a known, dangerous condition, like children playing in a parking lot, to continue. Moreover, it is incumbent upon those complexes receiving monetary subsidies from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development to do so. The HUD handbook requires complexes to provide outdoor recreation areas and provides that: "[p]lay areas shall have sufficient barriers from streets, trafficked areas, or other hazardous areas that are unsafe or prevent enjoyable use of the areas." Record at 94.
The area in question, the parking lot, is designed to accommodate the vehicles and traffic of many families and is clearly a common area under the landlord's control. Thus, imposing a duty in this case is consistent with the existing duty of landlords to tenants. We conclude that public policy also weighs in favor of imposing a duty here.
Because all three factors weigh in favor of imposing a duty in this case, we hold that as a matter of law, the Housing Authority had a duty to Angela Pippin to take reasonable care to insure that she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC.
...use those areas for a variety of purposes, including as a place for their children to recreate. Cf., e.g., Indianapolis Housing Authority v. Pippin, 726 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind.App.2000) (public policy supports imposing duty on owner of multifamily housing complex to consider safety of common ......
-
Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC
...those areas for a variety of purposes, including as a place for their children to recreate. Cf., e.g., Indianapolis Housing Authority v. Pippin, 726 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind. App. 2000) (public policy supports imposing duty on owner of multifamily housing complex to consider safety of common ar......
-
Ritchie v. Glidden Co.
...655 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), unless "only one conclusion can be drawn from the facts." City of Indianapolis Hous. Auth. v. Pippin, 726 N.E.2d 341, 347 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). Graco claims that Brandenburger's action in turning on the pump while Ritchie was running her hands ove......
-
Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc.
...in an injury that was the act's natural and probable consequence in light of the circumstances. City of Indianapolis Hous. Auth. v. Pippin, 726 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). In a similar vein, with respect to strict liability actions, the plaintiff must prove that: (1) the product was ......