DISPOSING OF NEGLIGENCE
CLAIMS VIA SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
By: James O. Giffin, RBE Attorney
D
efending against negligence claims can be an
expensive and time-consuming endeavor. This
is particularly true if the claims have to be defended
through trial. By that time, the parties will have
completed written discovery, taken depositions,
possibly retained expert witnesses, likely attempted
mediation, and perhaps engaged in other activities.
All of this takes time and money. Thus, it behooves
clients for their attorneys to identify opportunities
to expedite the resolution of such cases by
persuading courts to dispose of them via summary
judgment. Although the standards for such efforts
are generally deferential to plaintiffs, Indiana courts
have provided openings which defendants can
utilize to their advantage in the right circumstances.
Some of these openings are relatively narrow and
factually dependent. An example of this is Pfenning
v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011). In Pfenning,
a volunteer at a golf tournament was driving a cart
when she was struck and injured by a golfer’s errant
shot. The volunteer sued the golfer, the golf course
owner, the person who brought her to the tournament,
and one of the event’s sponsors. The Indiana
Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor
of the golf course owner, who was represented by
Riley Bennett Egloff LLP. The Court held, for the
first time, that if a sports participant’s conduct is
within the range of ordinary behavior for the activity,
then it is reasonable as a matter of law and does not
constitute a breach of duty. It is critical to note the
Court stated this finding was proper “as a matter of
law.” In very few other contexts is a court allowed
to find an action does or does not breach a legal
duty. Such determinations are generally factual in
nature and, thus, reserved for a jury. Pfenning, on the
other hand, allows a judge to adjudicate an essential
14
Riley Bennett Egloff LLP - June2017
element of the claim early on instead of allowing it
to proceed to a jury trial. If utilized properly, this
can save clients a great deal of time and money.
Indiana courts have also provided broader
opportunities for summary dispositions in negligence
claims. As an example, for the past twenty-five
years Indiana courts have determined whether or not
one party owes a legal duty to another party under
the framework set forth by Webb v. Jarvis, 575
N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991). This involved an analysis
of three factors: (1) the relationship between the
parties; (2) the reasonability probability of harm to
the person injured; and (3) public policy concerns.
However, in October 2016, the Indiana Supreme
Court handed down Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar
& Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016), a decision
which altered how Indiana courts are to analyze
whether a legal duty exists. If no legal duty exists,
a defendant may be entitled to summary judgment.
Goodwin held the foreseeability of an injury is a
necessary component of a legal duty. Before a court
may impose a legal duty on a defendant, it must
analyze the general type of plaintiff and har