BEAM v. WAL-MART STORES, INC.

Filing 74

ORDER granting 68 Motion for Summary Judgment. Final judgment shall be entered accordingly. See Order for details. (Copy mailed to plf). Signed by Magistrate Judge William G. Hussmann, Jr on 10/29/2012. (LBT)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
NEW ALBANY DIVISION
RHONDA BEAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC.
D/B/A WAL-MART STORE #1157,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:10-cv-10-WGH-SEB

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Honorable William G. Hussmann, Jr., United
States Magistrate Judge, based on the parties’ consent to Magistrate Judge
jurisdiction found in the parties’ Case Management Plan (Docket No. 15) and the
Order of Reference (Docket No. 16). Defendant filed a Motion for Summary
Judgment on July 25, 2012. (Docket Nos. 68-69). Notice to the pro se Plaintiff
was directed by the court on August 22, 2012. (Docket No. 70). The pro se
Plaintiff was allowed until October 18, 2012, to file her response, but she has not
done so.
Plaintiff alleges that she was injured in the Defendant’s store. Under
Indiana law, a claim for negligence requires the pro se Plaintiff to establish three
elements:
(1) a duty on the part of the defendant to conform his conduct to a
standard of care arising from his relationship with the plaintiff, (2) a
failure of the defendant to conform his conduct to the requisite

standard of care required by the relationship, and (3) an injury to
the plaintiff proximately caused by the breach.
Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Ind. 1991) (citing Miller v. Griesel, 308
N.E.2d 701, 706 (Ind. 1974)).
Indiana courts have long held that “negligence cannot be inferred from the
mere fact of an accident, absent special circumstances.” See, e.g., Hale v.
Community Hosp. of Indianapolis, Inc., 567 N.E.2d 842, 843 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991).
Similarly, “negligence cannot be established through inferential speculation
alone.” Id. Indiana law provides that “[i]n order to satisfy his or her burden of
proof, a plaintiff must present evidence of probative value based on facts, or
inferences to be drawn from the facts, establishing that the wrongful act was the
cause in fact of the occurrence and that the occurrence was the cause in fact of
the injury.” Estate of Carter v. Szymczak, 951 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
After this case has been pending three years, Plaintiff has not presented
any evidence to support her claim of negligence. Because Plaintiff has failed to
present any admissible evidence in support of her claim of negligence, the
Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Final judgment shall be entered
accordingly.
SO ORDERED the 29th day of October, 2012.

__________________________
William G. Hussmann, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana

-2-

Electronic copies to:
Brian R. Bouggy
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]
Matthew Reed King
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]
Eric A. Riegner
FROST BROWN TODD LLC
[e-mail]
Mail copy to:
Rhonda Beam
P.O. Box 132
Vernon, IN 47282

-3-