Spears v. Blackwell
666 N.E.2d 974, 1996 WL 330869, 1996 Ind. App. LEXIS 810 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An owner of realty generally does not owe a duty to passersby using an adjacent public thoroughfare regarding harm from natural conditions of the land, but such a duty is owed regarding artificial conditions about which the landowner knew or should have known. The distinction between natural and artificial conditions of vegetation can be a genuine issue of material fact, precluding summary judgment.
Facts:
- In the afternoon of June 14, 1991, Tim Spears was driving his car in a southerly direction on Ladoga Road in Montgomery County, Indiana.
- Gale and Toni Blackwell owned six acres of rural real estate abutting the west side of Ladoga Road, including a house located approximately 500 feet from the road.
- Stacy M. Brier, an employee of Sparkle Pools, was driving her car easterly down the Blackwells' driveway to leave their property after cleaning their pool.
- On the Blackwells' property, to the north and next to the end of the driveway, was a raised area of land with tall weeds growing, obstructing Brier's view of Ladoga Road.
- Brier stopped at the end of the driveway, looked both ways, and had to roll down her window to listen for oncoming vehicles because the height of the vegetation prevented her from seeing.
- Neither Brier nor Tim Spears saw each other's car as Brier entered Ladoga Road, resulting in Tim Spears's car striking the side of Brier's car, causing injuries to Tim Spears.
- Before the Blackwells' ownership, previous owners had planted juniper shrubs and a rock garden in the area where the vegetation was growing, and evidence of this was still present in August 1993.
- A corn field also existed in the vicinity of the raised area when the Blackwells first acquired the property, and the Blackwells mowed the area of vegetation on at least one occasion before the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- The Spearses filed a negligence suit against the Blackwells, alleging that Tim Spears's injuries resulted from obstructed visibility caused by vegetation on the Blackwells' property.
- The Blackwells filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing they owed no legal duty to Tim Spears regarding the maintenance of their property.
- On January 11, 1995, the trial court granted the Blackwells' motion for summary judgment, finding that the Blackwells owed no legal duty.
- On April 10, 1995, the trial court denied the Spearses' motion to correct errors.
- The Spearses (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether tall vegetation on a landowner's rural property, which obstructs visibility at a driveway leading to a public road, constitutes an artificial condition, thereby precluding summary judgment regarding the landowner's duty of care to a user of the public road?
Opinions:
Majority - Barteau, Judge
Yes, a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the tall vegetation on the Blackwells' property was an artificial condition, thereby precluding summary judgment for the landowners regarding their duty of care. To establish negligence, a plaintiff must prove duty, breach, and injury. While the existence of a duty is generally a matter of law, it can become a mixed question of law and fact when preliminary factual issues determine whether a duty arises. Generally, landowners do not owe a duty to passersby for harm resulting from natural conditions of their land, but they do owe a duty for artificial conditions they knew or should have known about. The trial court erred in concluding the vegetation was a natural condition as a matter of law. Citing the Restatement (Second) of Torts, the court clarified that natural conditions are those not changed by human activity, including natural growth on land not artificially made receptive to them. Conversely, planted vegetation is non-natural, and vegetation growing on land because it has been plowed is not considered a 'natural condition.' The Spearses presented evidence that the vegetation was not natural, including: previous plantings of juniper shrubs and a rock garden in the area; the presence of a corn field nearby when the Blackwells acquired the property; and the Blackwells' own act of mowing the area on at least one occasion. This evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the vegetation was a natural or artificial condition, which a reasonable trier of fact could determine. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate, and the case must be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Analysis:
This case reinforces that the distinction between natural and artificial conditions of land, particularly regarding vegetation that obstructs visibility, can be a question of fact rather than law, thereby making summary judgment inappropriate when a factual dispute exists. It clarifies that past human activity, such as planting, cultivating, or even inconsistent maintenance like mowing, can transform an otherwise 'natural' growth into an 'artificial' condition, potentially triggering a landowner's duty of care to adjacent roadway users. The decision makes it more difficult for landowners to obtain summary judgment in cases where obscured visibility from vegetation contributes to accidents, especially if there is any evidence of human alteration or intervention related to the land's condition.
