Indiana Supreme Court Clarifies Applicability of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Indiana Premise Liability Cases Allowing Personal Injury Claimant to Survive Summary Judgment

In one of our previous blogs, we wrote about the opinion of the Indiana Court of Appeals in Isgrig v. Trustees of Indiana University. Recently, the Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer and issued a decision clarifying the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in premise liability cases.

Kiera Isgrig (Isgrig), a student at Indiana University in Bloomington, suffered injuries when a window, including its frame and casing, in one of the university’s buildings fell out of the wall and landed on her head while she was studying for finals with friends. The building, Swain Hall, was open and accessible to students and the public at large. IU staff came and examined the window and found two broken sash springs, but no defect that would have caused it to fall. IU would perform reactionary maintenance, as opposed to proactive maintenance, on its windows when notified of issues with its windows. IU last serviced the window that fell on Isgrig in repairing its blinds a little over a year prior to the incident. No other damage was found at that time.

Isgrig filed a personal injury lawsuit against IU in which she asserted the legal doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which translated from Latin means the “thing speaks for itself.” Res ipsa loquitur provides an inference of negligence when something happens that would not normally happen without someone’s negligence. IU moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed. The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer.

Claimants attempting to use res ipsa loquitur must show the injuring instrumentality was under the “exclusive control” of the defendant and what happened does not normally happen if those who have control over the injuring instrumentality use proper care. Importantly, exclusive control “focuses upon who has the right or power to control and the opportunity to exercise it” and can be found even where there may be multiple defendants or multiple possible causes. It is not necessary that a claimant eliminate every other possible cause other than the defendant’s negligence. If the elements of res ipsa loquitur are shown, the inference of negligence remains in the case to be considered by the factfinder, even if the defendant has an explanation for what happened. 

In this case, IU argued that it cannot be held liable under Indiana’s premise liability standard because it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of any issue with the window, res ipsa loquitur is inapplicable when, as here, a claimant cannot establish the elements of premise liability, and it did not otherwise have exclusive control of the window, as required by res ipsa loquitur. In its decision, the Indiana Supreme Court framed the question before it as “whether a plaintiff can utilize the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence in a premise liability case.”

After examining Indiana premise liability law, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the application of res ipsa loquitur in premise liability cases, including prior case precedent, the Indiana Supreme Court held “res ipsa loquitur is appropriate in premise liability where the injuring instrumentality is a fixture and where such an incident would not normally occur absent negligence,” and importantly, a claimant need not first establish the elements of premise liability. The Court found duplicative and unnecessary its recent requirement in Griffin v. Menard, Inc., 175 N.E.3d 811 (Ind. 2021) that a claimant show a defendant’s actual or constructive knowledge under Indiana’s premise liability law before proving the elements of res ipsa loquitur. “[W]here the injuring instrumentality is a fixture and if the plaintiff is relying on res ipsa loquitur, they do not need to first establish that the defendant had actual or constructive knowledge of the fixture’s defect.” 

Analyzing the facts of this case, the Indiana Supreme Court found Isgrig could use res ipsa loquitur to defeat IU’s motion for summary judgment. The Court agreed that “the window was under the exclusive control or management of the University” and “windows do not ordinarily fall out of walls if those who have management or control have exercised proper care.” The Court reasoned, “[g]iven the well-established duty of care that landowners owe to invitees, it follows that landowners should bear responsibility if invitees are injured by defective fixtures in buildings on their land.” However, the Court noted that the inference of negligence supplied by the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not equate with a finding of negligence. While the inference of negligence supplied by res ipsa loquitur is enough for claimants to overcome summary judgment, ultimately, it is up to the trier of fact—a judge or jury—to determine whether a defendant was negligent.

You can read the full opinion here.