In a case of first impression, the Indiana Supreme Court recently ruled that a store manager in a premises liability case cannot be held personally liable for negligence for an accident in which he was not directly involved.
In Bramscomb v. Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. and James Clark, the Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s allegations of independent liability against store managers in premises liability litigation finding for the first time that a store manager who does not possess the land and who was not delegated sufficient control over the premises does not owe a duty of care to invitees.
A customer at Wall-Mart, Branscomb (not an Indiana resident) fell while shopping. He brought a claim against the store and its manager Jim Clark ( a Indiana resident) , including claims for failure to properly hire, train and supervise employees, failure to have and/or implement proper safety policies and procedures, and failure to properly inspect and maintain the property in a safe condition.
Walmart sought to remove the case to federal court, alleging a fraudulent joinder in that Clark, “was added solely to defeat federal diversity jurisdiction.” Wal-Mart argued Clark was not working or physically present at the store on the day of the accident, and that he did not have the individual discretion to determine safety policies or procedures for the store, but follows Wal-Mart policy.
Finding no clear precedent on the issue, Judge Holly Brady of the Indiana Northern District issued an order seeking the Indiana Supreme Court’s guidance on whether Clark could be liable as a defendant when he was not directly involved in Branscomb’s injuries. After accepting the certified question, Justice Steven David wrote for the unanimous court that the Branscomb cannot recover on any of their claims against Clark.
Justice David noted first that the tort of negligent hiring, training and supervision should be pled against an employer not an employee and dismissed this claim. Justice David also indicated recent case law holds the tort does not apply when the tortfeasor is acting within the scope of his employment. But the “meat and potatoes” of the case, David wrote, was the claim against Clark for failure to inspect and maintain the property. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in Clark’s favor, finding that under the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Clark did not possess the land and was not “delegated sufficient control over the premises as to owe them a duty of care … .”
“The record before us does not reflect that Clark took over control of the Wal-Mart premises nor does it reflect that anyone, including Branscomb, relied specifically on him to ensure the store was safe. Also, Clark’s position as store manager cannot, without more, subject him to liability,” the Supreme Court held.“… While Clark maintaining the store for the benefit of Walmart may also benefit store patrons, Clark owed the duty to Wal-Mart, not store patrons, absent more.
On this record, there is nothing more to make Clark liable to the plaintiffs.
- Senior Attorney
A senior attorney in Plunkett Cooney's Indianapolis office, Pamela A. Paige maintains a diverse practice in the areas of banking, insurance coverage and general litigation, including claims involving creditors' rights ...
Add a comment
- Premises Liability
- Retail Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- General Liability
- Residential Liability
- Civil Litigation
- Commercial Real Estate
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Independent Medical Examinations (IME)
- Contractor Liability
- Property Liability
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Liquor Liability
- Open & Obvious
- Risk Management
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Commercial Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Auto Liability
- Judicial Estoppel
- No Fault Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Wrongful Death
- Real Estate
- FDA Regulations
- Food Law
- Foodservice & Hospitality
- Regulatory Law
- Constructive Notice
- Governmental Immunity
- Indiana Supreme Court Rules Store Managers Cannot be Held Negligent for Accidents in Which They Played no Part
- Open and Obvious Doctrine Remains Alive, but for How Long?
- Court Ruling Bans Cameras, Allows Observers for Independent Medical Exams
- Appellate Court ‘Loans’ Temporary Possessory Rights to Contractor, Allowing it to Assert Premises Liability Defenses
- Appellate Court Holds Sporting Event Rules Violations Not Necessarily Reckless Misconduct
- Warehouse Clubs Should Consider Arbitration for Member Disputes
- Truck Driver’s Bodily Injury Claim Barred by his Bankruptcy Case
- Intoxication Bars College Student’s Estate from Wrongful Death Action
- New Supreme Court Discovery Rule Places Emphasis on Proportionality Over Relevance
- Court Reinforces Principle That Landowners Generally Have no Duty to Prevent Criminal Acts