Court Opinion

ID: 9716634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:46:38.199338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:47.406956
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent, yet fully embrace our supreme court’s holding in Jarboe v. Landmark Community Newspapers, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 118, 123 (Ind.1994), which determined that the summary judgment standard in Indiana requires the movant to establish the “absence of any genuine issue of fact as to a determinative issue.” Moreover, I acknowledge that such a requirement is different from the federal standard enunciated in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). See id. at 123.
*1117I must agree, however, with Justice Boehm’s comments set forth in his dissent to the denial of transfer in Lenhardt Tool & Die Co. Inc. v. Lumpe, 722 N.E.2d 824 (Ind.2000), that there appears to be a “widespread misunderstanding of how the summary judgment standard is to work.” Id. at 825. Specifically, I favor Justice Boehm’s observation that it should be sufficient for summary judgment under Indiana Trial Rule 56, to establish on undisputed facts either that: (1) the non-movant will be unsuccessful as a matter' of law or (2) the non-movant will be unable at trial to establish an essential fact on which the non-movant carries the burden of proof. Id. at 826-27.
I also acquiesce in the view that once the movant has put forward evidence to (1) establish the elements of the claim or defense, or (2) negate an essential element of the non-movant’s claim or defense, or (3) prove that the non-moving party will be unable to present evidence to prove an essential element of its claim or defense, the burden should shift to the non-movant to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial on each challenged element. Id. at 827; see also Mullin v. Municipal City of South Bend, 639 N.E.2d 278, 281 (Ind.1994). As Justice Boehm noted, such a pronouncement simply means that once the movant meets his burden, the non-movant must articulate specific facts that .show an issue of material fact requiring a trial. Id. at 828; see also Clark v. Estate of Slavens, 687 N.E.2d 246, 248 (Ind.Ct.App.1997), abrogated on other grounds by Indiana Farmers Mut. Ins. Co. v. Richie, 707 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind.1999). Our summary judgment standard read in such a light furthers the goals of a just, speedy and inexpensive determination of an action where it can be established that the non-movant will be unable to produce evidence to support his claim or defense. Lenhardt Tool & Die, 722 N.E.2d at 828; see also Indiana Trial Rule 1. There should be no reason to go to trial or prolong a proceeding if undisputed evidence establishes that an essential claim or defense is doomed to failure. Id. at 828.
It is apparent to me that the entry of summary judgment in Gohmann’s favor was appropriate, inasmuch as the record in this case demonstrates that Gohmann met her burden of establishing the absence of any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the breach of her duty of care. Our summary judgment standard set forth in T.R. 56 does not, and should not, require Gohmann to prove that she was not responsible for the accident, inasmuch as proof of a negative is neither compelled nor warranted under our rules. See Town of Montezuma v. Downs, 685 N.E.2d 108, 116 n. 9 (Ind.Ct.App.1997).
As the majority points out, this court has noted that a motorist must maintain a proper lookout while operating a motor vehicle as a reasonably prudent person would do in the same or similar circumstances. See Brock v. Walton, 456 N.E.2d 1087, 1091 (Ind.Ct.App.1983). He has a duty to use due care to avoid a collision and to maintain his automobile under reasonable control. Chaney v. Tingley, 174 Ind.App. 191, 195, 366 N.E.2d 707, 710 (1977). In Brock we recognized that:
The driver of a motor vehicle on a public highway who is on the proper side of the highway has a right to presume that the driver of a car approaching from the opposite direction and on the left hand or wrong side of the highway will return to his proper side in time to avoid a collision, and under such circumstances does not have to anticipate he will not do so.
Id. at 1092. We have also observed that a motorist must have sufficient time and distance to take evasive action In order to avoid a collision. See Schultz v. Hodus, 535 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. denied. Specifically, the duty to keep a proper lookout and use reasonable care does not require a motorist to do the “impossible to avoid a collision.” Id. To be sure, we noted in Brock that:
*1118Having the means and ability to avoid a collision means not only the mechanical appliances, such as steering apparatus with which to swerve, signaling equipment with which to warn, or braking appliances with which to slow down or stop, but also the existence of sufficient time and distance, considering the movements and speeds of the vehicles, to enable the party charged [with failure to keep a careful lookout] to take effective action in avoidance.
Brock, 456 N.E.2d at 1092-93.
Here, I would note that Cole does not contest that Gohmann was properly operating her motor vehicle in her lane of travel when Cole’s automobile began to fishtail. Rather, he asserts that Gohmann has been unable to demonstrate a lack of duty or a breach of duty to the plaintiffs.
The record shows that Gohmann first observed Cole’s vehicle when it was two to three car lengths away. R. at 48. Further, Gohmann testified that approximately four seconds had elapsed from the time that she saw Cole’s vehicle begin to spin until the collision occurred. R. at 48-49. Notwithstanding the short period of time that had elapsed, Cole asserts Gohmann should have been able to honk her horn or blink her lights to give Cole warning of the impact. R. at 46. Moreover, the majority observes that, under these circumstances, “the jury must decide whether Gohmann should have been able to honk her horn or blink her lights to give Cole warning of the impact or take other action.” Op. at 1116. To me, such a pronouncement erroneously implies that the issue of whether someone maintained a proper lookout under any set of circumstances would always create a question of fact, regardless of the nonmov-ant’s conduct.
I would also note in this case that Shan-ice Dods.on was unable to identify the rate of speed that Gohmann was traveling and did not know how Gohmann was driving immediately prior to the accident. R. at 83-84. She could not state how close Goh-mann’s vehicle was to Cole’s automobile when he crossed the centerline. To the contrary, Dodson was only able to testify that Gohmann was a few feet away when she first noticed Gohmann’s vehicle. R. at 83-84. Jeffery Dodson has no recollection of the accident as it occurred. R. at 78.
Similar to the circumstances that were presented in Schultz, the designated evidence here demonstrates that Gohmann had only four seconds to react in order to anticipate and avoid the collision. The Dodsons could not identify the manner in which Gohmann was operating her vehicle. Thus, the only inference that may be drawn from the evidence designated to the trial court is that Gohmann did not have sufficient time to react to Cole’s vehicle when it crossed over into her lane. I therefore reject the notion that a reasonable inference arose establishing that Gohmann breached her duty to avoid a collision. Thus, it is my belief that no competent evidence was presented from which a jury could infer that Gohmann was negligent in the operation of her automobile. In my view, Gohmann did designate materials establishing the absence of a material fact regarding whether she breached a duty of care and, contrary to the position set forth by the majority, it is apparent to me that even under the pronouncement in Jarboe, Gohmann successfully met her burden of proof in these circumstances. I therefore vote to affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Gohmann.