Griffin v. Menard, Inc.

• Decision Date: 19 October 2021
• Docket Number: Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CT-119
• Citation: 175 N.E.3d 811
• Parties: Walter GRIFFIN, Jr. and Candus Griffin, Appellants/Plaintiffs, v. MENARD, INC. and Briggs Plumbing Products, LLC, Appellees/Defendants.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

175 N.E.3d 811

Walter GRIFFIN, Jr. and Candus Griffin, Appellants/Plaintiffs,

v.MENARD, INC. and Briggs Plumbing Products, LLC, Appellees/Defendants.

Supreme Court Case No. 21S-CT-119

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Argued: May 13, 2021

Filed: October 19, 2021

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: Jeffrey J. Stesiak, James P. Barth, Pfeifer, Morgan & Stesiak, South Bend, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Karl J. Veracco, Larry L. Bernard, Carson, LLP, Fort Wayne, Indiana

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals No. 20A-CT-310

David, Justice.

In this summary judgment case we are asked to determine: 1) if there is an issue of material fact regarding whether a store had actual or constructive knowledge that a box in its store that opened at the bottom and injured a customer was defective; and 2) whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur can apply to these facts and circumstances. For the reasons discussed herein we answer both questions in the negative.

Facts and Procedural History

Walter and Candus Griffin were shopping for a sink in Menard. They found one they liked and Walter grabbed the box from the shelf. When he did so, the bottom of the box opened and the sink fell on him, causing him injuries. Walter did not notice that the staples were coming loose when he picked up the box from the shelf. The Griffins sued Menard for damages alleging premises liability and loss of consortium. Menard brought in the manufacturer of the sink as a third party.

Menard filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that it had no actual or constructive knowledge of any issues with the box. The Griffins argued there remains an issue of material fact regarding Menard's knowledge and made a res ipsa loquitur claim.¹ The trial court granted summary judgment for Menard. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. It found that there were issues of material fact precluding summary judgment on the knowledge issue as well as the res ipsa issue.

Under the facts and circumstances here, there is no issue of material fact as there is no evidence that Menard had either actual or constructive knowledge that the box was defective. Further, Plaintiffs do not have a viable res ipsa claim. As such, we affirm the trial court.

Standard of Review

We review summary judgment de novo and using the same standard the as the trial court. Hughley v. State , 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). That is, we draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party and summary judgment is appropriate where there is no genuine issue of 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. Id.

Discussion and Decision

I. Indiana's summary judgment standard

Summary judgment "is a desirable tool to allow the trial court to dispose of cases where only legal issues exist." Id. at 1003 (citations omitted). As this Court explained in Hughley , "Indiana consciously errs on the side of letting marginal cases proceed to trial on the merits, rather than risk short-circuiting meritorious claims." Id. at 1004. That is, we do not want to prematurely clos[e] the courthouse doors to the non-moving party. Id. at 1005. This standard has long been in place even prior to Hughley . But our standard is not without bounds.

As explained in more detail below, even with our standard which is generous to the non-moving party, Plaintiffs here cannot overcome Menard's summary judgment motion on this record.

II. Plaintiffs did not meet their burden on their premises liability claim.

In Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind. 1991), this Court adopted the following language defining the duty owed an invitee by the premises owner:

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.

Id. at 639–40 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 343 (1965) ).

Here, Walter was a business invitee of Menard. To prevail on their premises liability claim, Plaintiffs needed to prove that Menard had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition—here the defective box. Burrell , 569 N.E.2d at 639. And pursuant to our summary judgment standard, the initial burden was on Menard to prove an absence of a genuine issue as to a material fact. Hughley , 15 N.E.3d at 1003.

With regard to the designated evidence, the record here is sparse. To affirmatively negate Plaintiffs’ claim of constructive knowledge, Menard presented the Griffins’ deposition testimony and the affidavit of general manager Brett Bahr. Bahr's affidavit stated that Menard had no prior notice of any problem or defect with the box and, had an employee noticed any issues, they would not have placed the box on the shelf in the first place. Menard's designated evidence also reveals that since 2000, the store manager was not aware of any defective sink boxes by the company that manufactured the sink at issue. Further, Menard does not make any changes to the boxes received by the manufacturer. Walter testified that he did not notice that the staples were coming loose on the bottom of the box.

In response, Plaintiffs designated evidence focused on Menard's failure to document its compliance with its own policies on inspecting products. While Menard had a process for inspecting each section of the store and front facing the products, it is not clear when the last time the box at issue was examined. Menard kept no records and had no surveillance footage. Further, it did not know when the sink was first stocked or how long it had been on the shelf.

The Court of Appeals held that there was an issue of material fact here and we disagree. Menard set forth evidence, through the affidavit of its store manager and Walter's deposition testimony, that there was an absence of genuine material fact as to its actual or constructive knowledge that the box was defective. The burden then shifted to Plaintiffs to come forward with evidence that creates an issue of material fact. Hughley , 15 N.E.3d at 1003.

Although Plaintiffs designated evidence that Menard had no records of when it last inspected the boxes or how long the box was on the shelf, and Plaintiffs are critical of the same, this doesn't create an issue of material fact with regard to Menard's actual or constructive knowledge. (This goes more towards the reasonableness element, if anything.) Indeed, Plaintiffs do not argue that Menard had any duty to have certain policies, conduct certain inspections, or keep records of the same. We decline to impose such duties. We also reject any implication that a premises owner may avoid an inference of constructive notice by failing to enact or follow safety policies.

Here, the designated deposition testimony of Walter reveals that a visual inspection of the box did not indicate its dangerous condition as he testified that he did not notice staples on the box coming loose. Thus, there is no indication or evidence that Menard's should have noticed the defective condition of the box after it was initially placed on the shelf even if they would have inspected and front-faced the products. The defect here was not readily apparent or visible and staples on the bottom of the box did not fail until after the box was fully removed from the shelf.

While our summary judgment standard allows for even marginal cases to proceed to trial, the non-moving party must designate some evidence to defeat the moving parties’ motion. Plaintiffs’ designated evidence falls short of what is needed to create an issue of material fact as to Menard's knowledge of the box's defect. While they are critical of Menard's policies and procedures, they have designated no evidence to refute the fact that Menard had no actual or constructive knowledge that the box at issue was defective. Notably, the designated evidence does not include copies of the policies and practices at issue or an employee handbook. We would be in a different situation if there was, for example, deposition testimony indicating that this type of box had opened before, that a store employee saw the staples had come loose and Menard placed the box on the shelf anyway, that the defect was something that could be identified when front facing the products, or that the staples were known to fail after a certain period of time. But those are not the facts before us. Instead, Plaintiffs offer speculation that an inspection or some other action on the part of Menard maybe could have revealed something about the box defect. However, there's no evidence supporting that speculation and speculation is not enough to overcome summary judgment. As Plaintiffs did not meet their burden, we must affirm the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Menard. (Plaintiffs may still proceed against the box manufacturer.)

III. Plaintiffs’ res ipsa loquitur claim fails.

Res ipsa loquitur is translated from Latin as "the thing speaks for itself."

Gary Cmty. Sch. Corp. v. Lardydell , 8 N.E.3d 241, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur recognizes that in some situations, an occurrence is so unusual, that absent reasonable justification, the person in control of the situation should be held responsible. Cergnul v. Heritage Inn of Indiana, Inc. , 785 N.E.2d 328, 331 (Ind. App. 2003). The central question in res ipsa loquitur cases is whether the incident probably resulted from the defendant's negligence rather than from some other cause. Deuitch v. Fleming , 746 N.E.2d 993, 999 (Ind. App. 2001). To establish this inference of negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that the...