Court Opinion

ID: 9897288
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:09:43.382529+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:04.293316
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                         Sep 19 2023, 8:33 am

                                                                             CLERK
                                                                         Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                            Court of Appeals
                                                                              and Tax Court

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT                                    ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
David W. Stone IV                                          Jeremy J. McDonald
Stone Law Office & Legal Research                          Nathan D. Ridgway
Anderson, Indiana                                          Clint A. Zalas
                                                           Lee & Zalas, P.C.
Franklin D. Julian                                         South Bend, Indiana
William A. Keller
Anthony R. Steven
Sweeney Julian
South Bend, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Charles Force,                                             September 19, 2023
Appellant-Plaintiff,                                       Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           22A-CT-2759
        v.
                                                           Appeal from the
New China Hy Buffet LLC,                                   St. Joseph Superior Court
Appellee-Defendant.                                        The Honorable
                                                           Jenny Pitts Manier, Judge

                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           71D05-2003-CT-79

                               Opinion by Senior Judge Baker
                               Judges Crone and Foley concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023                           Page 1 of 8
      Baker, Senior Judge.

      Statement of the Case
[1]   After enjoying a meal with his wife and his brother-in-law at a buffet restaurant,

      Charles Force fell and became injured. He sued the restaurant’s owner, New

      China Hy Buffet, LLC (“New China”), alleging his fall was caused by New

      China’s negligent failure to clean the floor. The trial court granted summary

      judgment in favor of New China. Concluding Force’s designated evidence

      establishes a genuine dispute of material fact on the question of causation, we

      reverse and remand.

      Issue
[2]   Force raises one issue, which we restate as: whether the trial court erred in

      granting New China’s motion for summary judgment.

      Facts and Procedural History
[3]   On January 25, 2020, Force, his wife Stephanie Force (“Stephanie”), and

      Stephanie’s brother, Jerimiah Steele, arrived at the New China Buffet for

      dinner. Force noticed the restaurant was humid, because the windows were

      fogged and the air felt steamy. Stephanie also saw moisture on the windows.

      The restaurant had carpeted floors except around the buffet tables, where there

      were tiles. Stephanie felt condensation on the floor as the group walked to their

      table.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023   Page 2 of 8
[4]   During their meal, Force and his companions went to the buffet tables. Steele

      slipped on the tiled portion of the floor, but he did not fall. He noticed a

      “shiny” patch on the tile floor that appeared to be “water and grease.”

      Appellant’s App. Vol. II, p. 83.

[5]   Later, Force and his companions finished their meal and left their table. Force

      fell as he stepped from the carpet onto the tiles, striking his right knee on the

      ground. Other restaurant guests helped him stand up, and he moved to a chair

      near the exit. Stephanie looked at the spot where Force had fallen and noted “a

      thin layer of grease, oil, or some other slick substance . . . .” Id. at 79. After

      Force rested for a few minutes, Stephanie and Steele helped him walk to their

      vehicle, and they went to the hospital.

[6]   While they were at the hospital, Stephanie noticed a greasy black mark on

      Force’s pants. Force described the mark as “food grease soil,” id. at 35, and

      “oily gunk,” id. at 36. The mark was at the spot where Force’s knee had

      touched the floor and had not been present before his fall at New China’s

      restaurant. Stephanie stated Force’s jeans did not have any marks prior to his

      fall at New China. Later that day, when Stephanie prepared to launder Force’s

      pants, she smelled the mark and noticed an odor of grease.

[7]   Force sued New China, alleging its employees negligently failed to keep the

      floor clean, resulting in his injury. New China moved for summary judgment.

      The trial court held a hearing and later granted New China’s motion. This

      appeal followed.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023       Page 3 of 8
      Discussion and Decision
[8]   Force asks the Court to reverse the trial court’s grant of summary judgment,

      arguing he designated evidence that was “more than sufficient to create an issue

      of fact as to what caused the fall.” Appellant’s Br. p. 6. We review a trial

      court’s summary judgment decision de novo, using the same standard as the

      trial court. Griffin v. Menard, Inc., 175 N.E.3d 811, 812-13 (Ind. 2021).

      Summary judgment is appropriate “if the designated evidentiary matter shows

      that there is no 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).

[9]   “The moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there

      are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to

      judgment as a matter of law . . . .” Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904

      N.E.2d 1267, 1270 (Ind. 2009). If the movant satisfies that burden, “the burden

      then shifts to the non-moving party to designate and produce evidence of facts

      showing the existence of a genuine issue of material fact.” Id. “A fact is

      ‘material’ if its resolution would affect the outcome of the case, and an issue is

      ‘genuine’ if a trier of fact is required to resolve the parties’ differing accounts of

      the truth . . . .” Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. 2009). “We must

      construe all factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party, and all doubts

      as to the existence of a material issue must be resolved against the moving

      party.” Hale v. SS Liquors, Inc., 956 N.E.2d 1189, 1191 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023        Page 4 of 8
[10]   The Indiana Supreme Court has explained, “Indiana consciously errs on the

       side of letting marginal cases proceed to trial on the merits, rather than risk

       short-circuiting meritorious claims.” Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1004

       (Ind. 2014). As a result, while the non-moving party has the burden on appeal

       of showing the Court that the grant of summary judgment was erroneous, we

       carefully assess the trial court’s decision to ensure the non-movant was not

       improperly denied a trial. Brown by Brown v. Southside Animal Shelter, Inc., 158

       N.E.3d 401, 405 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), adhered to on reh’g, 162 N.E.3d 1121

       (2021), trans. denied.

[11]   Force claims New China was negligent. “The elements of negligence are duty,

       breach of duty, and damages proximately caused by the breach.” Hellums v.

       Raber, 853 N.E.2d 143, 145-46 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “It is a well-settled

       principle that [a] tort can be proven by circumstantial evidence alone.” Thomas

       v. State, 698 N.E.2d 320, 324 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), trans. denied.

[12]   The parties’ dispute focuses on the element of causation. “A negligent act or

       omission is the proximate cause of an injury if the injury is a natural and

       probable consequence which, in light of the circumstances, should reasonably

       have been foreseen or anticipated.” Gates v. Riley ex rel. Riley, 723 N.E.2d 946,

       950 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied. Put differently, “[p]roximate cause

       requires that there be a reasonable connection between the defendant’s allegedly

       negligent conduct and the plaintiff’s damages.” Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023     Page 5 of 8
[13]   “Generally, it is the jury’s function to determine whether a defendant’s conduct

       was a substantial factor in bringing about injury; when there might be a

       reasonable difference of opinion as to the foreseeability of a particular risk or

       the reasonableness with regard to it, the question is also one for the jury.”

       Harper v. Guarantee Auto Stores, 533 N.E.2d 1258, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989),

       trans. denied. “Only in plain and indisputable cases, where only a single

       inference or conclusion can be drawn, are the questions of proximate cause and

       intervening cause matters of law to be determined by the court.” Peters v.

       Forster, 804 N.E.2d 736, 743 (Ind. 2004).

[14]   In Golba v. Kohl’s Dep’t Store, Inc., 585 N.E.2d 14, 17 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992), trans.

       denied, a person who fell in a department store opposed the store’s motion for

       summary judgment but did not prevail in the trial court, despite designating

       evidence showing she slipped on a small piece of debris in the store several

       hours after employees had swept the floors. The Court reversed the trial court’s

       grant of summary judgment, determining the person’s evidence established a

       dispute of fact that required a jury to decide the question of causation. Id.; see

       also St. Mary’s Med. Ctr. of Evansville, Inc. v. Loomis, 783 N.E.2d 274, 281 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 2002) (affirming denial of hospital’s motion for judgment on evidence

       in slip and fall case; victim provided evidence he had slipped on water in break

       room, and the back of his clothes were wet); Barsz v. Max Shapiro, Inc., 600

       N.E.2d 151, 153 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (reversing grant of summary judgment to

       restaurant owner in slip and fall case; victim designated evidence showing her

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023       Page 6 of 8
       fall was caused by stepping in something slippery, and a water glass was found

       on floor near where victim fell).

[15]   The circumstances of Force’s case resemble those in Golba, Loomis, and Barsz.

       When Force, Stephanie, and Steele entered the restaurant, Force and Stephanie

       saw moisture on the windows. Force further noticed the air was steamy. In

       addition, Stephanie felt moisture on the floor as she walked to their table, and

       Steele slipped as he obtained food from a buffet. Steele observed a patch of

       water or grease on the floor. After Force fell, Stephanie saw a thin layer of

       liquid on the floor. Also, Force and Stephanie noticed a black mark on the

       knee of Force’s jeans, at the spot where his knee touched the floor. The spot

       appeared oily to Force, and Stephanie smelled grease on the spot. Stephanie

       stated the mark had not been on Force’s jeans prior to his fall. This evidence

       establishes a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Force’s fall was

       caused by New China’s negligent failure to keep the floor clean.

[16]   New China argues negligence cannot be inferred merely because an accident

       occurred. We do not quarrel with that principle, but the facts here establish

       more than an accident. Instead, Force presented material facts to support his

       claim that New China’s negligence caused his injury. Next, New China points

       to alleged inconsistencies in Stephanie and Steele’s deposition testimony, but

       any inconsistencies would pertain to their credibility. And “[s]ummary

       judgment must be denied if the resolution hinges upon state of mind, credibility

       of the witnesses, or the weight of the testimony.” Nelson v. Jimison, 634 N.E.2d

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023    Page 7 of 8
       509, 512 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994). The trial court erred in granting New China’s

       motion for summary judgment.

       Conclusion
[17]   For the reasons stated above, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and

       remand for further proceedings.

[18]   Reversed and remanded.

       Crone, J., and Foley, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 22A-CT-2759 | September 19, 2023   Page 8 of 8