Opinion ID: 852297
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Walkers' Claim

Text: A school sidewalk is a public thoroughfare subject to subsection (3). Yerkes v. Heartland Career Center, 661 N.E.2d 558, 561 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied. The parties dispute only whether Lolita's fall resulted from a temporary condition caused by weather. GCSC argues that the defective condition was a result of the natural accumulation of ice and snow in the winter time. Specifically, GCSC argues that there had been no precipitation the few days preceding Lolita's accident and nobody else had slipped on the walkway, therefore the condition was due to the normal thawing and freezing of a thin layer of ice that occurred naturally in winter. GCSC also argues that it had no notice of the defective condition that contributed to Lolita's fall and therefore had no opportunity to remedy the condition. For both of these reasons, GCSC contends it is immune as a matter of law. Even if it was not entitled to immunity as a matter of law, GCSC argues that the trial court's refusal to give its proposed instruction on immunity was reversible error. Finally, GCSC suggests that all icy conditions should be rebuttably presumed to be temporary, effectively shifting the burden to the plaintiffs to disprove immunity. Lolita counters that the lack of recent precipitation and the fact that no one else slipped on the walkway suggest that sufficient time had passed that GCSC had the opportunity to remedy the condition and breached a duty to do so. We conclude GCSC failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to immunity as a matter of law. The record reasonably supports both GCSC's and Lolita's explanation of the facts. The record does not indicate whether the temperature had fallen below freezing, and if so whether this occurred for the first time that morning, or whether the temperature had remained consistently below freezing for the preceding few days. There is no indisputable evidence establishing whether Lolita fell on an isolated ice patch that resulted from temporary cold that morning, or on a sheet of ice that had been there for days, or something else. Indeed, there was no showing of any unusual recent weather condition. Because immunity is a matter of law for the court to decide, the trial court properly refused GCSC's proposed jury instruction. GCSC argues that it had no notice of the condition and that in itself establishes that the condition was temporary. We do not agree. Notice of a condition (e.g., the washed-out culvert in Catt ) may be relevant to whether there was an opportunity to remedy it, particularly if the condition is the result of a sudden change. But here we have a condition in an area that is, or should be, regularly patrolled, and if attributable to weather at all, may have persisted for several days. Even if attributable to weather, because GCSC has not established that it had no opportunity to cure the condition, GCSC has not established that the condition was temporary. Accordingly, GCSC failed to establish immunity under the ITCA. GCSC's remaining argumentsthat GCSC's policy was to remove snow and ice only when there was a school event, that the accumulation on the sidewalk was not an obstruction to travel, and that GCSC is not obligated to remove all snow and ice from its sidewalkgo to the issue of negligence and not to immunity. GCSC has a duty to keep the sidewalk in a reasonably safe condition. Determining whether GCSC breached that duty raised factual issues that were resolved by the jury. Finally, we decline GCSC's request to adopt a rebuttable presumption that all icy conditions are temporary. Because the ITCA is in derogation of the common law, we construe the act strictly against limiting a claimant's right to bring suit. Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend, 639 N.E.2d 278, 281 (Ind.1994) (citing Hinshaw v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Jay County, 611 N.E.2d 637, 639 (Ind.1993)). We have consistently held that the municipality seeking the immunity bears the burden of establishing it. Hochstetler, 868 N.E.2d at 426. Adopting the GCSC's presumption would shift the burden of proof of immunity to the claimants, which the General Assembly has not seen fit to do.