United States District Court, S.D. Indiana, Indianapolis Division
ENTRY ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
William T. Lawrence, Senior Judge
cause is before the Court on the motions for summary judgment
filed by Defendants FacilitySource, LLC
(“FacilitySource”) (Dkt. No. 21) and Meijer
Stores Limited Partnership (“Meijer) (Dkt. No. 42). The
motions are ripe for review, and the Court, being duly
advised, DENIES the motions for the reasons
set forth below.
December 15, 2015, FacilitySource and Meijer executed a
Master Services Agreement (“MSA”), pursuant to
which FacilitySource agreed to provide services to Meijer as
described in a statement of work. On October 4, 2016,
FacilitySource and Meijer executed a statement of work
(“SOW”) for snow and ice management.
December 13, 2016, the Indianapolis, Indiana area received
3.9 inches of snow. On December 14, 2016, Brownsburg Plowing,
a subcontractor of FacilitySource, performed snow and ice
removal services at the Meijer grocery store located at 10841
E. U.S. 36 in Avon, Indiana. On December 16, 2016, Plaintiff
Teresa Williams slipped, fell, and was injured while walking
between cars in the Meijer parking lot.
Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment
is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” In ruling on
a motion for summary judgment, the admissible evidence
presented by the non-moving party must be believed, and all
reasonable inferences must be drawn in the non-movant's
favor. Zerante v. DeLuca, 555 F.3d 582, 584 (7th
Cir. 2009) (“We view the record in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party and draw all reasonable
inferences in that party's favor.”). However, a
party who bears the burden of proof on a particular issue may
not rest on its pleadings, but must show what evidence it has
that there is a genuine issue of material fact that requires
trial. Johnson v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d
892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003). Finally, the non-moving party bears
the burden of specifically identifying the relevant evidence
of record, and “the court is not required to scour the
record in search of evidence to defeat a motion for summary
judgment.” Ritchie v. Glidden Co., 242 F.3d
713, 723 (7th Cir. 2001).
Meijer's Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Williams's fall and resulting
injuries were caused by the Defendants' negligence.
“In Indiana, the tort of negligence is comprised of
three elements: (1) a duty on the part of defendant in
relation to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's breach of
that duty; and (3) an injury to the plaintiff resulting from
that failure.” Kolozsvari v. Doe, 943 N.E.2d
823, 826-27 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011).
purposes of this motion, both the Plaintiffs and Meijer agree
that the Mrs.
was an invitee. In determining the standard of care owed to
invitees, the parties look to Section 343 of the Restatement
(Second) of Torts, which states that:
A possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm
caused to his invitees by a condition on the land if, but
only if, he
(a) knows or by the exercise of reasonable care would
discover the condition, and should realize that it involves
an unreasonable ...