Court Opinion

ID: 9453235
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:07:36.881962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:34.551537
License: Public Domain

DUFFY
Senior Circuit Judge (dissenting).
In this diversity suit, we must apply Indiana law whether or not we like that law in this case.
Under Indiana law, plaintiff was a social guest. She was the godmother of defendant’s daughter. She came to defendants’ home, took off her shoes and had a drink. She acted as, and undoubt*48edly was, regarded as a member of the family.
Under Indiana law, plaintiff had the status of a licensee. She took the furniture, furnishings and equipment of the home as she found them. The owners of the premises owed the plaintiff the duty to abstain from any positive, wrongful act which might increase plaintiff’s risk or cause her injury.
What wrongful or negligent act did the defendants perform? Plaintiff speaks of a highly polished floor, yet, that floor had not been waxed for more than four months prior to the date of the accident, and apparently the room was used daily.
The backing on the three by five rug had become worn, yet many rugs have no backing at all, and under Indiana law, defendants could not be held liable for failing to provide a skid-proof rug.
We should do more than pay lip service to Indiana law. In my opinion, Olson v. Kushner, 211 N.E.2d 620 (Ind. App., 1965) requires that the District Court herein should be affirmed. The facts in Olson are very similar to those in the ease at bar. In Olson, the plaintiff alleged in her complaint that she fell on concrete stairs leading up to and around the defendants’ home. She claimed the defendants were negligent because they failed to provide proper lighting and handrails on the stairs and allowed water, slush and other slippery materials to accumulate on the stairway. Plaintiff also alleged defendants provided her with a defective umbrella. The trial court sustained defendants’ demurrer to the complaint and the Appellate Court of Indiana affirmed. Olson is indistinguishable from this case. If the Indiana court did not find defendants’ acts in Olson to be sufficient to constitute active negligence, this Court, in my opinion, is compelled to hold that the Scheidts’ acts do not constitute active negligence. Therefore, there is no duty to warn and no jury question. The majority opinion transforms passive negligence into active negligence in the face of Olson.
The majority opinion cites Barman v. Spencer, 49 N.E. 9 (Ind.Sup.Ct., 1898) to support its view. However, the majority opinion overlooks the following pertinent language in Barman, supra, at p. 13 — “ ‘Defects in a house, such as are incident to the ordinary wear of housekeeping, but which are the cause of injury to a lawful visitor, attach no liability to the owner or occupant of the house.’ ”
There is no material issue of fact in this case to go to the jury. I would affirm the summary judgment in favor of defendants.