 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miles v. Christensen2/29/2000
FOR PUBLICATION
OPINION - FOR PUBLICATION
Appellants-Defendants Elmer E. Miles and Mary S. Miles ("the Mileses") bring an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's order denying their motion for summary judgment. They raise one issue that we restate as whether owners of rural land abutting a public roadway owe a duty to care for or remove decaying or dead trees located on their land so as to protect people traveling on the public roadway.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
At the time of the events relevant to this appeal, the Mileses owned property abutting the south side of Indiana State Road 124 and approximately one mile east of the City of Peru. On March 13, 1995, as twenty-one-year-old Jason Christensen ("Jason") was riding a motorcycle eastbound on State Road 124, a dead elm tree, which was located on the Mileses' property, fell onto the road and struck Jason. As a result, Jason sustained massive head injuries and died. The tree had been dead for years and was visible from the perimeter of the property.
On June 7, 1996, David Christensen and Jo Ann Christensen ("the Christensens"), as personal representatives of the estate of their son Jason, filed a complaint against the Mileses for Jason's wrongful death. In that complaint, the Christensens alleged the Mileses were negligent in failing to maintain their real estate in a reasonably safe condition and in failing to inspect their land and correct the danger caused by dead or dying trees. On January 29, 1998, the Mileses filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming in part that they owed no duty of care to Jason and thus could not have incurred liability in this cause. On July 20, 1998, the trial court denied the Mileses' motion for summary judgment, and this interlocutory appeal ensued.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When reviewing the grant or denial of a summary judgment motion, this court applies the same standard as the trial court. Webster v. Pekin Ins. Co., 713 N.E.2d 932, 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). When the designated materials show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the grant of a summary judgment motion will be affirmed. Long v. Dilling Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 705 N.E.2d 1022, 1024 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999), reh'g denied, trans. denied. As we construe the evidence in favor of the non-movant, doubts about whether a genuine issue of material fact exists are resolved against the motion's proponent. Webster, 713 N.E.2d at 935. A genuine issue of material fact exists when facts concerning an issue that would dispose of the litigation are in dispute or when the undisputed facts are able to support conflicting inferences on such an issue. Id. at 936. A grant of summary judgment may be affirmed on any theory supported by the designated materials. Long, 705 N.E.2d at 1024. In negligence cases, summary judgment is rarely appropriate. Best Homes, Inc. v. Rainwater, 714 N.E.2d 702, 706 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
In determining what, if any, duty is owed by a landowner as to trees and other natural conditions of his land, we are guided by Valinet v. Eskew, 574 N.E.2d 283, 285 (Ind. 1991), in which our supreme court addressed a landowner's liability for injuries resulting from such natural conditions.
Valinet noted a "general rule of non-liability for natural conditions on land" and explained that the rule
arose at a time when land was largely unsettled and the burden imposed on a landowner to inspect it for safety was held to exceed the societal benefit of preventing possible harm to passersby. Courts have im
Page 1 2 3 Indiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|