BLACKWELL v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HENRY COUNTY INDIANA (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Chris Blackwell brings an interlocutory appeal of the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Board of Commissioners of Henry County, Indiana (“Henry County”) on his negligence claim. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On May 27, 2021, Blackwell was out riding motorcycles with his friend Chris Ferrell. The friends were traveling westbound on Frank Meyers Road in Wayne County, they were both traveling at about twenty-five to thirty miles per hour, and Blackwell was riding his motorcycle approximately fifty yards behind Ferrell. As the pair approached the Henry County line, Ferrell saw that the roadway changed from pavement to gravel at the county line. Ferrell braked and brought his motorcycle safely to a stop about 100 feet before the county line.

[3] Blackwell saw Ferrell's “brake lights c[o]me on” and assumed that was because the roadway changed from pavement to what Blackwell thought to be “pretty deep ․ pea gravel.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 54.¹ Blackwell was far enough behind Ferrell that he could see the gravel road for himself. When he “realized [Ferrell had] stopped,” Blackwell applied both his front and back brakes. Id. Blackwell “didn't know [Ferrell] was going to stop like that, right in front of [him]” which caused him to apply his “brakes a little bit harder.” Id. Blackwell's “back tire went over to the left and threw [him] to the ground.” Id. Blackwell never “ma[d]e it to the gravel” roadway in Henry County as he applied his brakes and fell off his bike while still on the paved roadway in Wayne County. Id.

[4] On January 20, 2023, Blackwell filed a complaint for damages against Henry County and Board of Commissioners of Wayne County, Indiana (“Wayne County”)² alleging that both counties owed a duty to him “and the motoring public to design, construct, and maintain their respective roadways in a reasonably safe condition, to reasonably warn [him] and the motoring public of defects” and “unreasonably dangerous conditions on the roadway that began in Henry County,” and that both counties “breached their duties ․ causing injuries and damages” to him. Id. at 15-16.³ On February 19, 2025, Henry County filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that “the accident occurred solely in Wayne County” and Henry County owed no duty to Blackwell. Id. at 20. Specifically, Henry County argued that “the gravel which was present in Henry County did not affect the road where this accident occurred in Wayne County. [Blackwell] braked and lost control of his bike in Wayne County, for reasons which he cannot explain.” Id. at 23. Henry County also argued that “[t]he existence of the open and obvious condition of an approaching gravel road does not create a duty of care on behalf of [Henry County] to members of the motoring public who never arrive on its property and were therefore not its invitees” and further, “there was no dangerous condition of which Henry County may have had a duty to warn.” Id. at 23-24.

[5] On August 14, 2025, the court held an evidentiary hearing. On August 22, 2025, the court entered a detailed order granting summary judgment in favor of Henry County. On August 29, 2025, noting that the “case remains pending as to [Wayne County],” but finding no just reason for delay, the court declared that its summary judgment in favor of Henry County was a final appealable order. Id. at 11.

Discussion

[6] Blackwell challenges the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Henry County. Our standard of review is well settled. Summary judgment is appropriate only where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Trial Rule 56(C); Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep't of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970, 973 (Ind. 2001). The party moving for summary judgment has the burden of making a prima facie showing there is no genuine issue of material fact. Goodwin v. Yeakle's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2016). Once met, the burden shifts to the non-moving party to show the existence of a genuine issue by setting forth specifically designated facts. Id. Our review is de novo, drawing all reasonable inferences from the evidence in favor of the nonmovant. Ind. Dep't of Ins. v. Doe, 247 N.E.3d 1204, 1210 (Ind. 2024) (citing Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000, 1003 (Ind. 2014)). In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment, we may affirm on any grounds supported by the Indiana Trial Rule 56 designated materials. Catt v. Bd. of Commr's of Knox Cnty., 779 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind. 2002). On appeal, the trial court's order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment is cloaked with a presumption of validity. Ellis v. City of Martinsville, 940 N.E.2d 1197, 1201 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). The party appealing the trial court's summary judgment determination bears the burden of persuading the appellate court the ruling was erroneous. Ryan v. TCI Architects/Eng'rs/Contractors, Inc., 72 N.E.3d 908, 913 (Ind. 2017).

[7] “[T]o prevail on a claim of negligence the plaintiff must show: (1) duty owed to plaintiff by defendant; (2) breach of duty by allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; and (3) compensable injury proximately caused by defendant's breach of duty.” Goodwin, 62 N.E.3d at 386-387 (citations omitted). “Absent a duty there can be no negligence or liability based upon the breach.” Id. Whether a duty exists is a question of law for the court to decide. Id. However, “a judicial determination of the existence of a duty is unnecessary where the element of duty has ‘already been declared or otherwise articulated.’ ” Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316, 321 (Ind. 2016) (quoting N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462, 465 (Ind. 2003)).

[8] The Indiana Supreme Court very recently reiterated that a county “has a common law duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence to keep its streets and sidewalks in a reasonably safe condition for travel.” Martinez v. Smith, (filed Apr. 8, 2026), Ind. No. 26S-CT-112, slip op. at *10 (quoting Ladra v. State, 177 N.E.3d 412, 415 (Ind. 2021)). We agree with the trial court that this well-articulated duty applies to both Wayne County and Henry County and the “fact that neither rider entered Henry County does not negate” the existence of this general duty from Henry County to members of the public at large, including Blackwell. Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 13.

[9] Regarding breach and proximate cause, we observe that a county may only be “held liable for a dangerous defect or condition in a highway” if it has “knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the dangerous, unsafe or hazardous condition.” Martinez, slip op. at *10 (quoting Boger v. Lake Cnty. Comm'rs, 547 N.E.2d 257, 259 (Ind. 1989)). It is undisputed that Blackwell never crossed onto Henry County's gravel roadway and there is no evidence that any condition in the gravel roadway directly affected his operation of his motorcycle.⁴

[10] As for Blackwell's assertion that the mere existence of Henry County's gravel roadway at the county line resulted in a chain reaction causing Ferrell to stop abruptly and then causing Blackwell to brake and fall off his motorcycle, we agree with the trial court that there are no material facts supporting such assertion. In his deposition, Blackwell testified that he saw the gravel roadway from afar and that he also saw Ferrell stopping. He further stated, “I was far enough back ․ I was way far enough back, that I should have been able to make the complete stop. Now what happened to my back tire? I really do not know.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 61. Thus, although the elements of breach and proximate cause generally present questions of fact that must be determined by a factfinder, Smith v. Walsh Constr. Co. II, LLC, 95 N.E.3d 78, 84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied, under the circumstances presented here, namely, that Blackwell acknowledges that he saw the gravel roadway and should have been able to stop, we conclude that there is no evidence upon which a jury could base a finding that Henry County breached a duty to Blackwell or proximately caused his injuries. Accordingly, Blackwell's negligence claim against Henry County fails as a matter of law.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court's summary judgment order.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ferrell stated that he believed the gravel to be made up of large stones approximately two or more inches in size. The record indicates that the gravel roadway was not made up of large stones or deep pea gravel but was, in fact, made up of “crushed rock with particle sizes ranging from 3/434” down to fine dusty particles ․ commonly used on gravel roads.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 138.

2.   We observe that while Wayne County recently filed an appearance with this Court, it was not a party to the summary judgment motion and did not file a brief on appeal. However, we have included it in the caption because a party of record in the trial court shall be a party on appeal. Ind. Appellate Rule 17(A).

3.   Although Blackwell's wife, Sherry, was also a plaintiff in the original complaint, she was subsequently dismissed as a party.

4.   Indeed, when asked during his deposition if “any of that gravel from Henry County [had] been carried onto the roadway in Wayne County in any way” such that it “had any play in why this happened,” Ferrell responded, “No ․ there was no gravel on the [Wayne County] side[.]” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 87.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.