Court Opinion

ID: 9517050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:02:11.478264+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:10.632028
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion because I believe that as a matter of law, Howard was at least slightly con-tributorily negligent. As a result, I believe that the trial court properly granted the School's motion for summary judgment.
As the majority points out, even the slightest negligence on Howard's part bars any recovery because his claim is governed by common law contributory negligence rules rather than the Indiana Comparative Fault Act. While contributory negligence is generally a question of fact for the jury, if the facts are undisputed and only a single inference can reasonably drawn from those facts, it is appropriate to decide the issue as a matter of law.3
*989While the majority points to a number of supposedly disputed material facts, in my opinion there is at least one undisputed- and dispositive-fact: Howard sat in the highest row of bleacher seats, leaned back to recline upon a row of seats that did not exist, and fell off of the bleachers to the floor. Whether or not Howard knew that he was seated at the top of the bleachers, that the bleachers did not include a back support, and that if he leaned back he could fall to the ground, the undisputed fact remains that he leaned back without first ensuring that there was something to lean on. That he may not have known that the bleachers did not have a back support is of no moment, inasmuch as any reasonably prudent person would have checked before leaning backwards.
Whether or not the defendants share the blame for Howard's injury is irrelevant inasmuch as I believe that he is at. least slightly contributorily negligent. I would therefore affirm the decision of the trial court granting the School's motion for summary judgment.
ORDER
This Court having heretofore handed down its opinion in this case on December 16, 2004 marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication.
The Appellants, by counsel, having thereafter filed their Motion to Publish said opinion, alleging that this opinion should be published because there is very little case law in Indiana on the issue of under what cireumstances may contributory negligence be decided as a matter of law and because the Memorandum Decision details the cireumstances under which contributory negligence may be decided as a matter of law it may impact all future negligence cases filed against governmental entities and, as such, involves a legal issue of unique interest and substantial public importance.
The Court having examined the Appellants' Motion to Publish, having reviewed its opinion in this appeal and being duly advised, now finds that said Motion to Publish should be granted and this Court's opinion heretofore handed down in this cause as a Memorandum Decision should now be ordered published.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellants' Motion to Publish is GRANTED, and this Court's Memorandum Decision heretofore handed down in this cause on December 16, 2004, marked Memorandum Decision, Not for Publication, is row ORDERED PUBLISHED.

. Templeton v. City of Hammond, 679 N.E.2d 1368, 1373 (Ind.Ct.App.1997).