Court Opinion

ID: 9533381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:31:14.08738+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:29:02.290852
License: Public Domain

KIRSCH, Judge,
dissenting.
I believe that a hospital-where thousands of people, many of whom are aged or infirm, come and go each day--owes a duty of due care to take reasonable steps to see that its means of ingress and egress do not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
In reaching this conclusion, I am cognizant of the prior holdings of this court that owners of property abutting a public sidewalk have no duty to clear the sidewalk of ice and snow. I believe the present case affords us the opportunity to re-examine these holdings, many of which are decades old, and all of which pre-date the decision of our supreme court in Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind.1991). In Webb v. Jarvis, our supreme court held that questions of duty should be resolved by examining the relationship of the parties, the foreseeability of the harm, and public policy concerns. I believe that such an examination leads to the conclusion that Lafayette Home Hospital owed a duty to Larry Lawson.
First, Lawson came to the hospital to provide transportation for his brother, a patient of the hospital. I believe those who bring patients to and take patients from a hospital have sufficient relationship with the hospital to weigh this factor in favor of imposing a duty on the hospital. Second, it is readily foreseeable that one who enters upon a sidewalk where snow and ice are allowed faces a risk of falling and of injury thereby resulting; thus, I believe this factor clearly weighs in favor of imposing a duty. Third, the public policy inquiry is, at least, in equipoise. On the one side, it can be argued as the Hospital argues here that holding landowners liable for the negligent removal of snow and ice on public sidewalks abutting their property would discourage them from undertaking snow and ice removal at all. On the other, it can be argued that one who opens its doors for a commercial purpose and the only means of access to such doors is across the public sidewalk should have a duty to take reasonable steps to see that its patrons do not face an unreasonable risk of harm in crossing that sidewalk whether the risk of harm is posed by snow, ice or other hazard. The cost of injury resulting from a fall can be substantial when visited upon an individual but that cost taken as a cost of doing business can be spread across the market served by the enterprise; indeed, liability insurance exists to spread such costs,. The public policy concerns in favor of imposing a duty are greater when the commercial establishment is a hospital whose patrons are often elderly and infirm. It seems anomalous that a hospital which owes a duty to those who come upon the premises to clear its parking lot of ice and snow and similarly owes a duty to maintain its entryway in a reasonably safe condition owes no duty to clear a three or four foot wide sidewalk which patrons must cross to get from the parking lot to the entryway. I believe applying the Webb v. Jarvis analysis here leads to the conclusion that indeed a duty was owed.
Alternatively, I believe that this case presents a material issue of fact whether the Hospital assumed a duty. Here, it is unquestioned that the Hospital cleared the sidewalk of snow in an attempt to assure that those who crossed the sidewalk adjoining its property could do so safely. In doing so, it owed a duty to do so in a reasonably safe and prudent matter. If it failed to do so and such failure was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, it should be held liable. I think the inqui*1132ry whether piling snow and ice next to sidewalk creates a natural or artificial condition should be irrelevant. The only relevant inquiry should be whether the Hospital's actions in removing and piling the snow were those of a reasonably prudent person.
Although it is fundamental, it should be noted that determining that the Hospital owed a duty of reasonable care to Lawson, whether such duty is imposed by law or found to have been assumed by the Hospital is not tantamount to imposing liability. Yet to be determined are the questions whether the Hospital breached this duty, whether such breach was the proximate cause of Lawson's injuries, whether Lawson was comparatively at fault and whether Lawson assumed the risks. It may well be that the trier of fact will find for the Hospital on all of these issues. Lawson, however, should have his day in court.
I would reverse the trial court and remand for trial.