## Facts

- Tim W. Spears drove south on Ladoga Road, a rural public road in Montgomery County, Indiana.
- Gale and Toni Blackwell owned property abutting the west side of Ladoga Road, with a driveway connecting their home to the road.
- Near the driveway-road junction was a slightly elevated strip of land separated from the roadway by a shallow ditch.
- Tall vegetation (described as weeds) grew on the elevated strip and allegedly blocked sightlines between the driveway and Ladoga Road.
- After servicing the Blackwells’ pool, Stacy M. Brier drove down the driveway to enter Ladoga Road; she stopped and looked but could not see approaching vehicles because of the vegetation, and listened for traffic instead.
- Brier entered the roadway and collided with Spears’s vehicle; Spears sustained injuries, and Kim Spears asserted derivative claims.
- The Spearses alleged the collision resulted from obstructed visibility caused by vegetation on the Blackwells’ property.
- Evidence indicated prior owners had planted shrubs and maintained a garden in the area, and the Blackwells had previously mowed it.

## Issues

1. Whether a rural landowner owes users of an adjacent public road a duty of reasonable care regarding vegetation that obstructs motorists’ vision when the vegetation is potentially a non-natural condition due to human alteration of the land.
2. Whether summary judgment was improper because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the obstructing vegetation was a natural condition or a condition changed by the landowner or predecessors.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary judgment for the Blackwells and remanded.
- The court held the vegetation could not be treated as a purely natural condition as a matter of law given evidence of planting/gardening by predecessors and mowing by the Blackwells.
- Because the “no duty” rule applies only to natural conditions, the Blackwells were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law on duty; at minimum, material fact issues precluded summary judgment.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; evidence is viewed with reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant.
- Under Indiana law, landowners generally owe no duty to users of adjacent public roads to protect them from harm caused by natural conditions on the land.
- A condition is not “natural” if it has been changed by the act of the landowner or the landowner’s predecessor (e.g., planting, gardening, mowing).
- When evidence supports competing inferences about whether a roadside condition is natural or altered, resolving duty solely by labeling the condition “natural” is improper at the summary-judgment stage.

## Conclusion

Because evidence supported a finding that the obstructing roadside vegetation resulted from human modification of the area, the landowners were not entitled to a categorical “no duty” ruling, and the negligence claims could proceed on remand.


Spears v. Blackwell, 666 N.E.2d 974 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)