Martin v. Shea

• Decision Date: 01 March 1982
• Docket Number: No. 1-881A253,1-881A253
• Citation: 432 N.E.2d 46
• Parties: David L. MARTIN and Donna J. Martin, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Richard SHEA, Appellee (Defendants Below).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 46

432 N.E.2d 46

David L. MARTIN and Donna J. Martin, Appellants (Plaintiffs Below), v. Richard SHEA, Appellee (Defendants Below).

No. 1-881A253.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

March 1, 1982.

Michael G. Naville, New Albany, for appellants.

Richard L. Mattox, Richard T. Mullineaux, Orbison, O'Connor, MacGreagor & Mattox, New Albany, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

This action arose out of a lawsuit initiated on January 14, 1980, by David and Donna Martin (Martins) against Richard Shea (Shea) to recover for personal injuries and loss of consortium. Shea filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 12(B)(6), for failure to state a claim, on January 25, 1980, which was denied on March 25, 1980. On January 27 1981, Shea filed a motion to reconsider his motion to dismiss which was granted on January 28, 1981. The Martins filed an amended complaint on February 9, 1981, which was dismissed upon motion on April 15, 1981. The Martins then filed their notice of praecipe on June 22, 1981, and proceeded with this appeal.

We reverse and remand.

On June 23, 1979, David and Donna Martin attended a swimming pool party at the residence of William and Grace Shea in Clark County, Indiana, hosted by their son, Richard Shea. During the course of the evening several of the guests participated in acts of "horseplay" around the pool. David Martin did not participate in these acts of horseplay. However, as he stood near the corner of the pool he was struck from behind by one of the guests and consequently fell into the pool, striking his head on the bottom. As a result, he was rendered quadriplegic, and was totally and permanently disabled.

The Martins argue that the trial court erred as a matter of law in dismissing their amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Martins allege that the defendant, Richard Shea, as host of the pool party and being present at the time in question, had a duty to control the conduct of those using the premises, such that one guest while engaging in acts of horseplay would not cause serious injury to another guest who was not participating in such acts. The trial court dismissed the complaint on a T.R. 12(B)(6) motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Our Supreme Court in State v. Rankin, (1973) 260 Ind. 228, 294 N.E.2d 604, specifically set forth the standard to be applied in reviewing dismissal actions under T.R. 12(B)(6). The Court stated that:

(A) complaint is not subject to dismissal unless it appears to a certainty that plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts.

In addition, the Court noted that this rule is based on so-called notice pleadings in which a plaintiff essentially need only plead the operative facts involved in the litigation. The Court went on to state that:

When no evidence has been heard or no affidavits have been submitted, a 12(B) (6) motion should be granted only where it is clear from the face of the complaint that under no circumstances could relief be granted.

In the case at bar, no evidence was heard and no affidavits were submitted pertaining to the question raised by the motion to dismiss. Consequently, the crucial question to be answered is whether there exists any circumstances under which relief may be granted. Research reveals that this is a case of first impression in this state. We thus turn to an examination of similar Indiana cases and cases from other jurisdictions based upon similar facts.

There is a tendency to classify this case among the long line of premises liability cases. Most premises liability cases involve physical defects from which injury has been incurred by individuals coming onto the premises. Generally, in such cases, the standard of care owed to an individual is determined by utilizing the three-fold distinction among licensees, invitees, and trespassers. See, Swanson v. Shroat (1976) 169 Ind.App. 80, 345 N.E.2d 872. However, this classification scheme seems inappropriate in the present case since we are not dealing with a premises liability case in the traditional sense. Although both parties refer, in their briefs, to David Martin as a licensee, there is no stipulation or ruling by the trial court in this regard. Consequently, until such determination is made at the trial level, we are unpersuaded to designate Mr. Martin as a licensee for purposes of determining the requisite standard of care owed by the defendant, Richard Shea.

Our attention is focused upon whether under certain circumstances a host of a swimming pool party has a duty to control the conduct of those using his premises so as to prevent one guest while engaging in certain acts from seriously injuring another guest. Duties, the violation of which may constitute negligence, usually arise by operation of the common law and by statute. Snyder v. Mouser (1977) 149 Ind.App. 334, 272 N.E.2d 627. Our courts have recognized the principles that a duty may arise out of the knowledge of certain situations and that violation of such duty will be negligence. In Snyder, supra, the court noted that upon review of a certain situation, a court may, after weighing the evidence, create a duty to fit the circumstances. Application of this principle is also demonstrated in the earlier case of Vandalia R. Co. v. Duling (1915) 60 Ind.App. 332, 109 N.E. 70. That case involved a railroad's liability for injuring animals belonging to another which had been allowed to enter onto the railroad's property, when the railroad had been previously warned that the animals were likely to be found there. Although the case was decided in accordance with an existing statute, the court recognizing general principles of negligence, went on to state:

The law requires of every person that he shall exercise due care to avoid injury to others and to protect themselves, and the vigilance required is always commensurate with the danger to be apprehended. Id. at 36, 437.

A case involving a somewhat similar factual situation is that of Glen Park Democratic Club, Inc., v. Kylsa (1966) 139 Ind.App. 393, 213 N.E.2d 812. In Glen Park, supra, a proprietor of a restaurant and tavern was sued by a plaintiff who was injured as a result of an assault by two belligerent patrons. The plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to protect him from their unprovoked assault. Admitting that it could find no Indiana precedent involving those facts, the court, in affirming the plaintiff's verdict, relied upon general principles of law concerning innkeepers, as well as the Minnesota case of Connolly v. Nicollet Hotel (1959) 254 Minn. 373, 95 N.W.2d 657. Connolly, supra, involved injuries to a passing pedestrian on the street below a hotel who was injured by some rowdy patrons of the establishment. The defendants argued that they could not be held liable for the unauthorized acts of a third person who, while on their premises, caused injury to an occupant of a public sidewalk. In response to their argument the Court stated:

It may be briefly stated that, even though the plaintiff was not a patron or a guest of the defendants, a relationship existed between them at the time and place of the injury which gave rise to a legal duty on the part of the defendants. That relationship imposed an affirmative duty upon the plaintiffs to guard the public from danger flowing from the use of their property by their guests and invitees, even though that use was not authorized by the defendants. There was a duty on the part of the defendants to members of the public at large to protect them from injury by forces set in motion as a result of the use which the defendants permitted to be made of their property. Id. at 667.

Other Indiana cases involving a duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct are Cory v. Ray (1944) 115 Ind.App. 50, 55 N.E.2d 117 and Miller v. Griesel, (1974) 261 Ind. 604, 308 N.E.2d 701. In Cory, supra, the court held that the operator of a place of public entertainment is required to use reasonable care to keep such place safe for patrons and for failing to do so may be held liable for injuries occasioned by his neglect. In Miller, supra, the court held that persons entrusted with children, or others whose characteristics make it likely that they may do somewhat unreasonable things, have a responsibility recognized by common law to supervise their charges.

A number of other jurisdictions have recognized a host's duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct so as to prevent injury to guests upon the premises. See, Oettinger v. Stewart (1944) 24 Cal.2d 133, 148 P.2d 19; Mangione v. Dimino (1972), 332 N.Y.S.2d 683, 39 A.D.2d 128; Potts v. Amis (1963), 62 Wash.2d 777, 384 P.2d 825. Mangione v. Dimino, supra, involved facts similar to those in the case at bar. In Mangione, the plaintiff's husband was thrown into the pool by other invited guests, and as a result, struck his leg on the rail of the steps leading into the pool causing permanent injuries. Defendants had witnessed these happenings and did nothing to protect plaintiff. The Supreme Court Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decision and held that the complaint did state a cause of action. In doing so, the Court stated that:

A property owner, or one in control or possession of real property, has the duty to control the conduct of those whom he permits to enter upon it, which he is required to exercise for the protection of others. Id. 332 N.Y.S.2d at 685.

Some jurisdictions have classified the distinction between condition of the premises and conduct of the defendant in terms of passive and active negligence. See, Oettinger v. Stewart, supra. The occupier's freedom from liability exists in the case of passive negligence or where the injury is caused by the unsafe condition of the premises. Where on the contrary, the injury results from the negligent acts of the occupier, this immunity disappears. See also, 156...