Res Ipsa Loquitur for Fixture-Based Premises Liability: Indiana’s New Frontier

Introduction

In Kiera Isgrig v. Trustees of Indiana University (Ind. 2025), the Indiana Supreme Court for the first time definitively recognized that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied in premises liability actions when an invitee is injured by a defect in a permanent fixture—such as a window, chandelier, shelving unit, or lighting apparatus—over which the landowner retains exclusive control. The plaintiff, a student at Indiana University, was seated in a study hall when an exterior window and its casing suddenly fell out of the wall and struck her. Lacking direct evidence of negligence, she invoked res ipsa loquitur. The trial court granted summary judgment for the University, and the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed. On transfer, the Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that (1) res ipsa loquitur reaches fixture-based injuries in premises liability; (2) the plaintiff need not separately prove the elements of premises liability before invoking the doctrine; and (3) the plaintiff had raised a genuine issue of material fact on both exclusive control and the “not ordinarily occurring” elements of res ipsa loquitur.

Summary of the Judgment

Justice Massa, writing for the majority, reversed the summary judgment entered for the Trustees of Indiana University. Key holdings:

The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may be applied in premises liability cases involving fixtures (e.g., windows) where an invitee is injured by a defect in a thing that the landowner exclusively controlled.
A plaintiff need not first satisfy the usual premises liability proof (knowledge of the defect) before invoking res ipsa loquitur; the two elements of the doctrine—exclusive control and the accident’s unusual nature—suffice to create an inference of negligence.
Here, the evidence that the University installed, maintained, and last serviced the window (including removal from its casing) together with expert testimony that windows do not ordinarily fall out of their casing without human involvement, raised genuine issues of material fact on both elements of the doctrine.
Accordingly, the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s decision synthesizes and extends a line of Indiana authorities on both premises liability and res ipsa loquitur:

Burrell v. Meads (1991): Adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 for invitee duty—knowledge of defect, unreasonable risk, and failure to correct or warn.
Rust v. Watson (1966) & Deming Hotel Co. v. Prox (1968): Early applications of res ipsa loquitur where a chandelier and a restaurant mirror, respectively, fell on invitees.
Shull v. B.F. Goodrich Co. (1985): Res ipsa loquitur in a factory-dock plate malfunction case, emphasizing exclusive control of the instrumentality.
K-Mart Corp. v. Gipson (1990): Display rack in a retail store fell on a patron; Court of Appeals held an inference of negligence was appropriate even without direct causation evidence.
Rector v. Oliver (2004): Ceiling light in a store fell on a customer; confirmed that fixture-based accidents “ordinarily do not happen” without negligence and that a jury must decide the inference.
Griffin v. Menard, Inc. (2021): Clarified that res ipsa loquitur could apply in premises liability only when a fixture “customers did not or could not disturb” injures an invitee, and previewed the fixture-based rule adopted here.

Legal Reasoning

The Court undertook a two-step analysis:

Premises Liability vs. Res Ipsa Loquitur. While traditional premises liability requires proof that the landowner knew—or by reasonable care should have known—of the defect (Restatement § 343), res ipsa loquitur supplies a circumstantial shortcut when direct proof of knowledge is unavailable. The Court held the doctrines coexist: once a fixture-based injury qualifies, the plaintiff need not separately prove the knowledge element before invoking the circumstantial inference.
Elements of Res Ipsa Loquitur in Fixture Cases. A plaintiff must establish:
- Exclusive Control: The fixture was installed, maintained, and remained under the landowner’s management; third parties could not realistically have introduced the specific defect.
- Unusual Nature of the Accident: The event “does not ordinarily occur” if those in control exercise proper care—here, a window does not spontaneously fall out of its casing under normal inspection and use.
If both elements are met, an inference of negligence arises and must be weighed by the fact-finder; summary judgment is inappropriate.

Applying these principles, the Court found:

Evidence that University carpenters installed and repaired the window (removing it from its casing for blind repairs in March 2017) supported “exclusive control.”
Expert testimony that sash springs break without causing the window to fall, and that a fixture falling out without warning is “bizarre and rare,” supported the accident’s unusual nature.
No direct evidence refuted these inferences; thus the University was not entitled to summary judgment.

Impact

The decision has immediate and long-term significance for Indiana tort law:

It lowers the barrier for invitees to invoke res ipsa loquitur in premises liability fixture cases, facilitating recovery where investigation by the occupant is effectively impossible.
Landowners and property managers must be vigilant in inspecting, documenting, and maintaining fixed installations (windows, light fixtures, shelving, etc.) to avoid circumstantial negligence inferences.
Trial and appellate courts will now analyze fixture-based accidents under this clarified two-element test, aligning Indiana with jurisdictions that allow “silent witness” inferences for fixed-object injuries.
Insurance underwriters and risk-management professionals should anticipate increased premises-liability exposure in higher-education, hospitality, retail, and public-building contexts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Premises Liability: A landowner owes its invited guests a duty to exercise reasonable care, including discovering hidden dangers on the property and warning or fixing them. Normally, you must show the owner knew (or should have known) of the danger.

Res Ipsa Loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”): When an accident is so unusual that it would not ordinarily happen without negligence, the law permits a plaintiff to infer negligence from the circumstances alone. Two things are required:

Exclusive Control: Only the defendant had real authority over the dangerous instrumentality.
Unusual Accident: The event does not normally occur if those in control use proper care.

Once these are shown, negligence is inferred and goes to the jury. It does not prove negligence outright but keeps the case alive when direct proof of a specific negligent act is unavailable.

Conclusion

Kiera Isgrig v. Trustees of Indiana University marks a significant expansion of Indiana’s negligence jurisprudence. It confirms that when a permanent fixture under a landowner’s exclusive management injures an invitee in a manner that “does not ordinarily occur” absent negligence, the plaintiff may invoke res ipsa loquitur without first establishing traditional premises liability proof. By lowering the evidentiary bar for fixture-based accidents, the decision balances the realities of hidden defects against property owners’ duty of reasonable care. Practitioners should anticipate new opportunities—and new responsibilities—for both plaintiffs and defendants in premises-liability litigation.