Yerano Martinez and Jessica Martinez v. Jeffrey Smith, et al.

Case No. 26S-CT-112 (Ind. Apr. 8, 2026) · Indiana Supreme Court · April 8, 2026 · No. 26S-CT-112

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that a landowner’s common-law duty under Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. to avoid creating hazardous conditions for passing motorists extends to traffic-control devices located within the public right-of-way. Because the defendant acknowledged that the overgrown bush extended into the county right-of-way and obstructed a stop sign, the Court held that summary judgment for the defendant was improper and reversed. Justice Molter concurred separately, and Justice Slaughter dissented separately.

Holdings

  1. The common-law duty recognized in Reece for landowners adjoining highways to refrain from creating hazardous conditions that visit themselves upon the roadway encompasses traffic-control devices located within the public right-of-way, not merely the paved or traveled surface of the road.
  2. Smith was not entitled to summary judgment because his admission that the bush's trunk fell within the county right-of-way established that the condition was not wholly contained on his property, and he therefore failed to carry his initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Indiana common law imposes on an adjoining landowner a duty under Reece to prevent conditions on the landowner's property from obstructing a traffic-control device located within a public right-of-way but outside the paved or traveled portion of the roadway.
  2. Whether Smith was entitled to summary judgment where he admitted that the bush extended into the county right-of-way and assumed that it created a visual obstruction.

Disposition

reversed

Cases Cited (30)

  • Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 173 N.E.3d 1031 (Ind. 2021)(followed and clarified)
  • Pitcairn v. Whiteside, 34 N.E.2d 943, 946 (Ind. Ct. App. 1941)(followed)
  • Sheley v. Cross, 680 N.E.2d 10, 13 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)(followed and distinguished in application)
  • Indianapolis Water Co. v. Schoenemann, 20 N.E.2d 671, 677 (Ind. Ct. App. 1939)(followed)
  • Town of Ogden Dunes v. Wildermuth, 235 N.E.2d 73, 76 (Ind. Ct. App. 1968)(followed)
  • City of Evansville v. Follis, 315 N.E.2d 724, 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)(followed)
  • Austin v. Durbin, 310 N.E.2d 893, 895 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974)(followed)
  • City of Angola v. Hulbert, 162 N.E.2d 324, 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 1959)(analogized)
  • Ladra v. State, 177 N.E.3d 412, 415 (Ind. 2021)(followed)
  • Physicians Plus Ins. Corp. v. Midwest Mut. Ins. Co., 632 N.W.2d 59, 66-67 (Wis. Ct. App. 2001), aff'd, 646 N.W.2d 777 (Wis. 2002)(persuasive authority followed)

Showing top 10 of 30.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…