Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court reviews a grocery store's denial of summary judgment in a negligence action arising from an assault in the store's parking lot. The court holds that landowners owe business invitees a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal attacks, and that Kroger failed to establish as a matter of law that the assault was unforeseeable. The court also holds that the trial court improperly struck Kroger's affidavits and admitted police reports, but affirms denial of summary judgment because genuine issues remained regarding foreseeability and breach.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly struck Kroger's summary-judgment affidavits and admitted police reports through Plonski's motion to strike.
- Whether a landowner's duty to protect business invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks is limited to attacks by patrons or guests.
- Whether Kroger established as a matter of law that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore that it owed no duty to Plonski.
- Whether Kroger established as a matter of law that it did not breach its duty or that its conduct was not a proximate cause of Plonski's injuries.
Holdings
- A difference of opinion about the facts asserted in competing summary-judgment materials is not a proper basis for striking an affidavit. The trial court erred in striking Kroger's affidavits and in admitting the police reports for that purpose.
- A proprietor's duty to protect business invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks is not limited to harm caused by other patrons or guests. Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks and to provide safe ingress and egress.
- Kroger failed to establish as a matter of law that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable. In determining foreseeability as part of duty, the court considers the totality of the circumstances, including the nature, condition, and location of the land and prior similar incidents.
- Kroger was not entitled to summary judgment on breach or proximate cause. Breach is ordinarily a question for the fact finder, and proximate cause is ordinarily a jury question; the designated materials did not establish that the facts permitted only one conclusion in Kroger's favor.
Key quotations
“Landowners have a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect their invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks” (7)
“The materials Kroger submitted simply do not satisfy this burden.” (8)
“Summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence actions.” (10)
Factual background
Plonski was assaulted and robbed while loading groceries into her car in the parking lot adjacent to a Kroger store. The assailant approached her, grabbed her and her purse, threw her into the trunk, and slammed the trunk lid on her legs before she escaped into the store. Kroger designated affidavits stating that the store was in a relatively safe area and that only one potentially violent incident involving a patron had occurred on the premises during the preceding two years. Plonski relied in part on surveillance cameras and evidence suggesting that they were not being monitored.
Procedural history
Plonski sued Kroger for injuries sustained when she was assaulted in Kroger's parking lot. After discovery, Kroger moved for summary judgment on duty, breach, and proximate cause grounds. The trial court denied the motion and allowed Plonski to strike Kroger's affidavits and introduce police reports; the Court of Appeals affirmed without reaching the affidavit issue. The Supreme Court granted transfer, held that the trial court erred in striking the affidavits and admitting the police reports, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment because Kroger still failed to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on foreseeability, breach, or proximate cause.