Frances Dehoyos v. Golden Manor Apartments

Golden Manor is a senior citizen living facility located in Hammond, Indiana.

During the winter of 2013, Golden Manor’s maintenance staff would generally

arrive at work at 8:00 a.m. to inspect the parking lot and sidewalk for ice and

snow. In its response to Dehoyos’ interrogatories, Golden Manor indicated

that its policy was to have staff also apply salt to sidewalks as needed. Golden

Manor had also contracted with Meier Snow Plow Company to clear snow

from the parking lot and to apply salt to sidewalks and the parking lot.

However, under the terms of the contract, Meier performed ice melting

applications only when directed by Golden Manor.

[4] Dehoyos lived at Golden Manor. Earlier, in 2013, she had experienced a

situation wherein Golden Manor’s management had failed to ensure that snow

was removed from the sidewalks. As she walked toward the building, she

found herself up to her ankles in icy snow. On that occasion, the building’s

manager helped her walk through the snow and ice. On other occasions,

Dehoyos observed that Golden Manor’s management failed to clean snow and

ice off sidewalks “until late afternoon.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 49. She

had also heard other residents complain about a lack of timeliness in clearing

off ice and snow on the premises.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 3 of 12



[5] On the morning of Sunday, December 29, 2013, there was snow on the ground,

and it had been there for a few days. It was cold. Meier’s workers had applied

salt at Golden Manor over the previous several days. There is no evidence that

Golden Manor’s staff inspected the sidewalks or applied salt on the morning of

December 29, 2013. Between 10:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., Dehoyos exited

Golden Manor’s building. The door she used opened onto a sidewalk that led

to the parking lot. A portion of the building’s downspout was located on top of

the sidewalk.

[6] Dehoyos took approximately two steps onto the sidewalk and then slipped and

fell on ice, striking her head. Although the sidewalk had initially appeared

clear, there was a “glaze” of ice on it. Id. at 41, 46. Dehoyos bled from a cut

on her head. She managed to return to her apartment and called her children,

and was taken to the hospital. She also sustained an injured ankle. Further,

after the fall Dehoyos began experiencing recurring headaches and neck pain.

[7] It appears from Golden Manor’s phone records that Golden Manor called

Meier shortly before 11:00 a.m. It further appears that Meier’s employees went

to Golden Manor shortly thereafter and again at approximately 3:30 p.m. that

day and applied two bags of salt at some point during those visits. On the next

day, December 30, 2013, Meier’s workers returned to Golden Manor and

spread six bags of salt on the sidewalks.

[8] On September 23, 2015, Dehoyos sued Golden Manor, alleging negligence

arising from the icy condition of the premises. Golden Manor filed an answer,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 4 of 12



and the case progressed. Golden Manor took Dehoyos’ deposition in January

2017. Next, Golden Manor filed a motion for summary judgment with a

supporting memorandum of law and a designation of evidence. Dehoyos filed

a response, a memorandum of law, and designation of materials, which

included her affidavit.

[9] Golden Manor filed a reply. In addition, Golden Manor moved to strike a

portion of Dehoyos’ affidavit and a portion of Dehoyos’ response to Golden

Manor’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court held oral argument,

after which it granted Golden Manor’s motion to strike. The trial court also

granted Golden Manor’s motion for summary judgment. The trial court

concluded, “there is no dispute of material fact “that Golden Manor knew that

a condition existed that created an unreasonable danger to DeHoyos [sic], or

should have discovered the condition and its danger.” Id. at 16. This appeal

followed.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Dehoyos argues the trial court erred in concluding there were no disputes of

material fact. She claims there is ample evidence Golden Manor knew or

reasonably should have known of the ice on which she fell and failed to take

reasonable steps to protect her against that danger.

[11] We review summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard as the trial

court. Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014). Summary judgment

is appropriate “if the designated evidentiary matter shows that there is no

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 5 of 12



genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a

judgment as a matter of law.” Ind. Trial Rule 56(C). We construe the evidence

in favor of the nonmovant and resolve all doubts against the moving party.

Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392, 397 (Ind. 2011) (quotation omitted). The

party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden to establish its

entitlement to summary judgment. Id. at 396-97. Only then does the burden

fall upon the nonmoving party to set forth specific facts demonstrating a

genuine issue for trial. Id. at 397 (quotation omitted).

[12] The summary judgment process is not a summary trial. Hughley, 15 N.E.3d at

1003-04. 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. Further, summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases

because such cases are particularly fact-sensitive and are governed by a standard

of the objective reasonable person, which is best applied by a jury after hearing

all the evidence. Kramer v. Catholic Charities of Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend,

Inc., 32 N.E.3d 227, 231 (Ind. 2015). Nevertheless, a grant of summary

judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity, and the appellant bears the

burden of demonstrating that the trial court erred. Id. (quotation omitted).

[13] Dehoyos’ premises liability claim against Golden Manor is grounded in

negligence. To recover on a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish: (1) a

duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3)

injury to the plaintiff resulting from the defendant’s breach. Miller v. Rosehill

Hotels, LLC, 45 N.E.3d 15, 19 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 6 of 12



[14] In Indiana, a person entering onto the land of another is an invitee, a licensee,

or a trespasser, and the entrant’s status on the land determines the duty that the

landowner owes to said person. Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind.

1991). The parties do not dispute that Dehoyos was an invitee of Golden

Manor because she resided on its property. A property owner has a duty to

maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition for business invitees.

Miller, 45 N.E.3d at 20. Liability for breach of the duty to maintain property is

established as follows:

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 20 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343). “‘[T]he duty of

reasonable care owed by an inviter to an invitee should in no way be

diminished by the presence of natural accumulations of ice and snow.’”

Henderson v. Reid Hosp. and Healthcare Servs., 17 N.E.3d 311, 316 (Ind. Ct. App.

2014) (quoting Poe v. Tate, 161 Ind. App. 212, 215, 315 N.E.2d 392, 394

(1974)), trans. denied.

[15] The key question is whether Golden Manor breached its duty to Dehoyos to

maintain its property in a reasonably safe condition. Whether an act or

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 7 of 12



omission is a breach of duty is generally a question of fact for a jury. N. Ind.

Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462, 466 (Ind. 2003). It is a question of law

only if the facts are undisputed and a single inference can be drawn from those

facts. Id.

[16] The Court has previously addressed premises liability cases involving invitees

who fell on snow and ice. In the Miller case, Miller was staying at a motel and

went outside to get in her car. 45 N.E.3d at 16. She saw snow on the ground,

and the parking lot was icy. Miller walked to her car via a salted sidewalk and

decided to move her car closer to the motel. Next, Miller got out of her car,

and she fell as she stepped onto a slick curb. She sued, claiming negligence

based on premises liability. The motel prevailed on summary judgment at the

trial court, but the Court reversed. The Court concluded there were disputes of

material fact as to whether the motel should have anticipated that an invitee

such as Miller would walk in the parking lot and on sidewalks despite the risk

of danger. Further, the Court determined there were disputes as to whether the

motel knew or reasonably should have known that the sidewalk was unsafe.

[17] Similarly, in the Henderson case, a hospital’s maintenance staff was notified

early one winter morning that slick patches were present in the parking lot. 17

N.E.3d at 313-14. They assembled a crew, who spread salt on the hospital’s

parking lots and sidewalks. Henderson parked in the hospital’s lot and slipped

on a patch of ice as she got out of her car, falling to the ground. Security

personnel later notified the maintenance staff that the parking lot was

insufficiently salted. The trial court granted summary judgment to the hospital,

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 8 of 12



but the Court reversed. The Court concluded there were disputes of material

fact as to whether the hospital acted reasonably in response to the ice on its

property as to invitees.

[18] In Christmas v. Kindred Nursing Ctrs. Ltd. P’ship, 952 N.E.2d 872 (Ind. Ct. App.

2011), Christmas visited a physical rehabilitation center. He walked through

snow and water in a parking lot and then stepped onto a sidewalk that appeared

to be covered in water. The substance was actually ice, and Christmas slipped

and fell. He had noticed salt on the ground next to the area where he fell. The

trial court granted summary judgment to the center, but the Court reversed.

Among other conclusions, the Court determined there were genuine disputes of

material fact as to whether the rehabilitation center knew or reasonably should

have known of the condition and the harm it posed to invitees and failed to

exercise reasonable care to protect against the danger.

[19] Also in 2011, the Court issued a decision in Bell v. Grandville Coop., Inc., 950

N.E.2d 747 (Ind. 2011). In that case, in February 2007 Bell was babysitting her

grandchild at an apartment complex. There were piles of snow in the parking

lot that had melted and refrozen over the past few days, and on the morning at

issue the complex’s maintenance staff had placed ice melt around the complex.

Bell’s daughter, who lived in the complex, had previously informed the

complex’s managers that ice tended to form in the parking lot outside her

building. As Bell walked to her car, she slipped and fell on the ice, suffering

injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment to the apartment complex,

but the Court reversed. The Court concluded there was a dispute of material

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 9 of 12



fact as to whether the complex knew or should have known of the threat of ice

to invitees and took reasonable steps to address it.

[20] By contrast, in Orth v. Smedley, 177 Ind. App. 90, 378 N.E.2d 20 (1978), a panel

of the Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment to a landlord

in a renter’s action for premises liability. The renter, Orth, left her apartment at

6:00 a.m. on a day in January. It had rained the night before, and the rain had

frozen into ice. Orth slipped and fell on an icy patch of driveway, breaking her

arm. She saw the ice before stepping on it but was trying to reach a car where

her coworker was waiting. The landlords did not wake up until 7:30 a.m. The

Court concluded there was no dispute of material fact as to whether the

landlords had actual or constructive knowledge of the danger the ice posed to

invitees because the landlords had not yet woken up and were unaware it had

stormed and then frozen the night before.

[21] To summarize, in the Henderson, Christmas, and Bell cases, the Court took note

of evidence that employees and contractors of the defendants had been aware of

icy and snowy ground and tried to address it, thus giving rise to disputes of

material fact as to whether: (1) the defendants were aware or reasonably should

have been aware of the danger; and (2) took reasonable steps to correct it. By

contrast, in the Orth case the property owners were asleep when ice formed at

their property, and there was no dispute of material fact as to whether the

property owners reasonably should have been aware of the danger to their

invitee.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 10 of 12



[22] The current case more closely resembles the Miller, Henderson, Christmas, and

Bell cases rather than the Orth case. Golden Manor does not dispute the fact

that it operated a senior citizen living center and had contracted with Meier

Snow Plow Company to clear snow from the building’s parking lot and to apply

salt on its sidewalks only as directed by Golden Manor. Earlier in 2013,

Dehoyos alleges that she had encountered trouble with ice and snow, and the

building’s manager had assisted her in walking through a dangerous area. In

addition, she alleges that she had noticed inadequate efforts to remove ice and

snow at the building. At times, snow and ice was not removed until the

afternoon. In addition, Dehoyos claimed she had heard complaints from others

on that topic.

[23] On the morning of December 29, 2013, snow remained on the ground at

Golden Manor and had been there for several days. Meier employees had

applied salt to Golden Manor sidewalks over the past several days. Between 10

a.m. and 11 a.m. on December 29, Dehoyos fell on a sidewalk that initially

looked safe but had a glaze of ice on it. Dehoyos’ inability to see the ice further

distinguishes this case from the Orth case, where the plaintiff saw the ice but

chose to walk on it anyway.

[24] The record indicates that shortly before 11:00 a.m., Golden Manor called

Meier. Afterwards, Meier’s employees went to Golden Manor twice that day,

and apparently spread two bags of salt on the sidewalk during their visits. On

the next day, December 30, Meier spread six bags of salt on the sidewalks.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 45A05-1711-CT-2721 | May 7, 2018 Page 11 of 12



[25] We conclude from the foregoing evidence that there are disputes of material

fact as to whether Golden Manor knew or reasonably should have known on

the morning of December 29, 2013, of the risk posed by ice on the sidewalk

where and before Dehoyos fell and whether Golden Manor took reasonable

care to address the risk.

[26] Golden Manor argues Dehoyos has failed to provide any evidence showing

when the ice formed, speculating that it could have formed after Golden

Manor’s building staff was supposed to have inspected the property in the

morning. Golden Manor points to no evidence that its staff did, in fact, inspect

the sidewalks before 10:00 a.m. the morning of December 29, 2013. It is

undisputed that cold winter conditions existed at the time of the incident and

that snow had been present at Golden Manor for several days. Further,

Dehoyos testified in her deposition that it was cold outside and had been for

several days. Given this evidence, and Golden Manor’s failure to point to any

evidence of drastic weather changes on the morning of December 29, one could

reasonably infer that the ice formed prior to Dehoyos’ slip and fall on the

morning of December 29. Dehoyos has carried her burden of demonstrating

error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment.

[27] Dehoyos also argues the trial court erred in granting Golden Manor’s motion to

strike, but we do not need to address that issue. There is other evidence in the

record that amply establishes disputes of material fact, and we do not need to

consider the statements that Golden Manor moved to strike.

For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and

remand for further proceedings.