Peters v. Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736 (Ind. 2004) – Slip and Fall

The plaintiff sustained injury after slipping on a wheelchair ramp attached to a home he was visiting.  Plaintiff filed suit against the contractor who installed the ramp.  The trial court granted summary judgment in the contractor’s favor on grounds that the “acceptance rule” precluded liability.  The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision relying on an exception to the “acceptance rule.”  The appeal to the Supreme Court ensued. 

Previously, Indiana law relieved contractors of liability to third parties after the owner accepted the work performed.  This rule is commonly known as the “acceptance rule.”  In this case, plaintiff alleged the defendant contractor installed the ramp in violation of the applicable building codes. The Indiana Supreme Court abandoned the “acceptance rule,” which they described as a “relic.”  Therefore, a contractor must now exercise reasonable care both in his or her work and in the course of performance of the work and will not be relieved of liability merely by the owner accepting the work.  The court does note, however, the duty of reasonable care is not owed to the world at large, but rather only to reasonably foreseeable parties.  Nonetheless, the court reverses the decision of the trial court holding contractors can no longer afford themselves of the “acceptance rule” defense to a negligence action, but rather traditional principles of negligence law will apply.

Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) – Control over Premises

This is a wrongful death case which arose when a truck driver of Tyson Foods was struck and killed by a forklift while at Wright Brothers Farm.  The defendant owned the farm and raised chickens pursuant to a contract with Tyson.  The accident occurred while Tyson employees were at the farm collecting chickens.  The decedent parked his truck near one of the chicken houses, and another Tyson employee who was in the chicken house backed the forklift out striking the decedent from behind, which led to his death.  The estate filed suit against Wright (d.b.a. “Wright Brothers Farm”) for negligence in failing to properly light the loading area and failing to warn the decedent of known dangers on the property.  The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, determining the employees of Tyson assumed control of the area where the accident occurred, and thus the defendant did not owe a duty to the plaintiff.
               
The Supreme Court determined a sufficient factual dispute existed regarding whether Tyson or the defendant controlled the premises where the accident occurred, and summary judgment was not proper. Since the defendant was always in control of the external lighting on the premises, the court determined even if Tyson controlled the premises while its employees gather chickens on defendant’s premises, that fact would not automatically relieve defendant of liability for injuries to Tyson employees. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case.