Ratliff v. Menard, Inc., Case No. 1:11-cv-00888-TWP-DKL
| Decision Date | 22 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:11-cv-00888-TWP-DKL |
| Parties | CURTIS RATLIFF, Plaintiff, v. MENARD, INC., doing business as MENARDS, Defendant. |
| Court | United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Southern District of Indiana) |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Menard, Inc.'s ("Menards") motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 38). Plaintiff Curtis Ratliff ("Mr. Ratliff") is an electrician who was hired by Menards as an independent contractor to complete repairs in the Camby, Indiana store. While attempting to reach an outside light fixture, Mr. Ratliff climbed atop a chain-link fence cage structure and fell approximately thirteen feet to the ground when the structure collapsed. Mr. Ratliff filed this suit alleging negligence on behalf of Menards that caused his injuries. Menards counter-claimed for the damage caused to the structure by Mr. Ratliff's fall. Menards has filed for summary judgment on both Mr. Ratliff's claim and its counter-claim. For the following reasons, the motion (Dkt. 38) is DENIED.
Mr. Ratliff is a self-employed electrician and owns Ratliff Electric, Inc. Menards is a home improvement store with numerous locations. Prior to October 13, 2009, Mr. Ratliff had completed electrical work for Menards approximately 200 times; specifically, Mr. Ratliff didelectrical work for the Camby, Indiana location approximately once per week.1 The week before October 13, 2009, Mr. Ratliff was contacted by Derek Uran ("Mr. Uran"), the second assistant manager for the Camby Menards location. Mr. Uran and Mr. Ratliff did a walk-through of the store to identify light fixtures that needed repair. One of the light fixtures was located outdoors above a chain-link fence cage structure ("fence cage" or "fence cage structure").
According to Mr. Ratliff, when he saw the outdoor light fixture he told Mr. Uran that a "knuckle lift" was needed to access the light fixture above the fence cage. Mr. Uran told Mr. Ratliff that a lift would cost too much, and implied that Menards would not pay for a lift in the future. Mr. Uran then told Mr. Ratliff that the light fixture could be reached by using two-by-twelve walk-boards and a ladder on top of the walk-boards.2 Mr. Ratliff interpreted Mr. Uran to mean that this method had been used at other Menards locations, of which Mr. Uran had personal knowledge. Mr. Ratliff left the conversation under the impression that Menards would not pay for a lift and that he needed to attempt the ladder and walk-board method to repair the light.
According to Mr. Uran, Mr. Ratliff asked whether a "knuckle lift" could be rented to reach the light fixture. Mr. Uran responded by asking if there was any way the light fixture could be reached without using the lift. Mr. Uran concedes that he made the suggestion that it might be possible to access the light fixture by using a ladder or multiple ladders to save the expense of using a lift. Mr. Uran left the conversation without knowledge of how Mr. Ratliff would ultimately reach the light fixture.
On October 13, 2009, Mr. Ratliff arrived at the Camby Menards store to repair the list of light fixtures. After repairing the indoor light fixtures, Mr. Ratliff and his assistant Matthew Hurt ("Mr. Hurt") pulled their van around to the fence cage. Mr. Ratliff removed a twenty-fourfoot extension ladder and a ten foot ladder from the van. He inspected the area and did not note any damage to the fence cage. He set up the twenty-four foot ladder against the wall near the fence cage. After climbing the ladder, he grabbed the nearest support bar and shook it to test its strength. Because it felt solid, Mr. Ratliff stepped onto the support bar. At some point, he also placed the ten foot ladder across several of the bars supporting the structure. Once he was standing on the first support bar of the fence cage, Mr. Ratliff told Mr. Hurt to "fetch" the walk-boards. Less than one minute after Mr. Hurt left the area, the fence cage collapsed and Mr. Ratliff fell approximately thirteen or fifteen feet to the ground. Mr. Ratliff sustained injuries as a result of the fall.
Mr. Ratliff filed suit against Menard, Inc. in Marion County Superior Court on June 15, 2011. Menards filed its Notice of Removal on June 30, 2011 (Dkt. 1). Thereafter, Menards filed the instant motion on May 29, 2012.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 provides that summary judgment is appropriate if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Hemsworth v. Quotesmith.Com, Inc., 476 F.3d 487, 489-90 (7th Cir. 2007). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the court reviews "the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draw[s] all reasonable inferences in that party's favor." Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). However, "[a] party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may not rest on its pleadings, but must affirmatively demonstrate, by specific factual allegations, that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires trial." Hemsworth, 476 F.3d at 490(citation omitted). "In much the same way that a court is not required to scour the record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary judgment, nor is it permitted to conduct a paper trial on the merits of a claim." Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d 713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001) (citation and internal quotations omitted). Finally, "neither the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties nor the existence of some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts is sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment." Chiaramonte v. Fashion Bed Group, Inc., 129 F.3d 391, 395 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations and internal quotations omitted).
Mr. Ratliff alleges Menards is liable for his injuries due to its negligence in failing to maintain its premises in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees, failing to adequately inspect its premises for hazardous conditions, failing to post or otherwise give adequate warnings to its business invitees about the hazardous condition, and failing to remove a known hazardous condition from its premise. In Indiana, the three elements that a plaintiff must prove to succeed on a negligence claim are: (1) a duty owed to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty by the defendant, and (3) the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's damages. Bond v. Walsh & Kelly, Inc., 869 N.E.2d 1264, 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (citing Peters v. Foster, 804 N.E.2d 736, 742 (Ind. 2004)). Breach of duty and proximate cause are generally issues of fact for a jury, but "whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide." Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382, 386 (Ind. 2004). The court may conclude as a matter of law that a breach of duty has occurred only where the facts are undisputed and lead to but a single inference or conclusion. King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 484 (Ind. 2003). Under Indiana law, independent contractors are considered business invitees and are owed a duty of care by a landowner.
The law of property owner liability is well settled in Indiana.
Indiana law starts with the premise that a property owner is generally under no duty to provide independent contractors with a safe place to work, but is under a duty to keep the property in a reasonably safe condition. Ozinga Transportation Systems, Inc. v. Michigan Ash Sales, Inc., 676 N.E.2d 379, 384 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), citing Ooms v. USX Corp., 661 N.E.2d 1250, 1252 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). A landowner also generally has the duty to warn independent contractors of latent or concealed perils located on the premises. Ozinga, 676 N.E.2d at 384, citing McClure v. Strother, 570 N.E.2d 1319, 1321 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991). Furthermore, a landowner is liable "for reasonably foreseeable injuries to a contractor's employee caused by hazardous instrumentalities maintained by the landowner on the landowner's premises." Ozinga, 676 N.E.2d at 384, citing McClure, 570 N.E.2d at 1322 (other citations omitted). In summary, the duty owed by a landowner to his business invitees is "to keep its property in a reasonably safe condition . . . ." Ozinga, 676 N.E.2d at 384.
Parojcic v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 128 F.3d 601, 603 (7th Cir. 1997); see Zawacki v. U.S.X., 750 N.E.2d 410, 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). The Indiana Supreme Court has adopted the following definition of a landowner's duty to his business invitees:
Thus, "it is appropriate, when determining whether a landowner breached its duty to an invitee, to consider the comparative knowledge of the landowner and the invitee." Zawacki, 750 N.E.2d at 414.
Menards raises the affirmative defense of incurred risk. "Incurred risk involves a mental state of venturousness on the part of the actor and demands a...
To continue reading
Request your trial