The Indiana Court of Appeals recently found against Amazon in two related cases, one involving personal injury and one involving wrongful death, finding Amazon owed a duty of care to two truck drivers injured on an abutting public road while attempting to deliver goods to one of Amazon’s fulfillment centers. In Oukbu v. Amazon, Mahari Mrach Oukbu (Oukbu) was struck by a vehicle and severely injured after he stopped and exited his truck on a county road along the south side of one of Amazon’s fulfillment centers while attempting to determine how to gain access to the fulfillment center. Around a month and a half later, in Kaur v. Amazon, Harvail Singh Dhillon (Dhillon) was struck and killed by a truck after he stopped and exited his vehicle on the county road while also trying to determine how to gain access to the fulfillment center.
Oukbu and Dhillon were both independent contractors/truck drivers. Neither of them had been to the fulfillment center before and neither were given instructions on how to access the facility’s premises. Amazon only gave them an address and a delivery time. Both Oukbu and Dhillon were injured in the early morning while it was still dark. The fulfillment center had three entrances along the county road. When approaching from the west, as Oukbu and Dhillon both did, the first two entrances had “no truck” signs. The third entrance was for deliveries, but it was 500 feet east of the facility. Oukbu and Dhillon both exited their trucks after passing the second “no truck” sign. Amazon had no signage at the first two entrances informing truck drivers where to go, and truck drivers were often seen getting out of their trucks in the same location. In fact, an Amazon employee told the police that “these lost truck drivers get out of their trucks at this spot every day.”
Oukbu and his wife and the estate of Dhillon filed lawsuits against Amazon. They alleged Amazon was negligent in its maintenance, design, and control of the fulfillment center’s entrances, including the layout and lack of lighting and signage at the entrances, which they claimed created a hazardous condition to business invitees such as Oukbu and Dhillon. Amazon filed motions for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Amazon did not owe Oukbu and Dhillon any duty of care and that any negligence by Amazon was not the proximate cause of their injuries. The trial court granted Amazon’s motions, finding Amazon had no duty with respect to the negligent acts of someone over whom Amazon had no control and when the injury occurred off Amazon’s premises.
In negligence cases, claimants must prove (1) a duty owed by the defendant, (2) breach of that duty by the defendant, and (3) damages proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of duty. Premise liability is generally based upon control, and landowners are generally not liable to their invitees for the acts of third parties over whom they have no control and when the injuries occur off the premises. However, landowners may be liable for injuries off their premises when those areas have dangerous conditions created by their use of those areas, when invitees reasonably believe landowners control the areas, and when landowners know invitees customarily use the areas in connection with the invitation. Also, landowners may be liable when they use their premises in a way that affects the risk of foreseeable injuries off the premises.
On appeal, Amazon argued that the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision in Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 173 N.E.3d 1031 (Ind. 2021), which we blogged about here, supported it having no duty to Oukbu and Kaur. However, the Indiana Court of Appeals noted that Reece was specifically limited to “visual obstructions” and did not involve duties owed to business invitees, and therefore, the Court found it inapplicable. Rather, the Court likened Amazon’s duty to that found in Lutheran Hosp. of Ind., Inc. v. Blaser, 634 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994), a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals found a hospital liable for a claimant’s injuries caused by the hospital’s funneling of pedestrian and vehicular traffic in an “exit” parking lot driveway often mistaken and used as an entrance. The Court also referenced Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 54 (2012) (Section 54), which provides in part that “[a] possessor of land has a duty of reasonable care for artificial conditions or conduct on the land that poses a risk of physical harm to persons or property not on the land.”
Here, the Indiana Court of Appeals found the allegations made by Oukbu and Kaur were sufficient to show Amazon owed a duty of reasonable care and Amazon’s conduct created a dangerous condition making passage on the abutting road unsafe. The Court referenced the allegations that Amazon controlled how delivery drivers entered the premises; created an artificial hazard, i.e., the “no trucks” signage, on the premises; knew or should have known truck drivers trying to enter the fulfillment center were confused about how to do so and were stopping and exiting their trucks because of the layout, signage, and lighting of the facility’s entrances; used its premises in a manner that harbored a dangerous condition off its premises affecting the risk of injuries to others; and did not provide instructions to truck drivers. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Judge Mathias concurred, writing separately to request the Indiana Supreme Court adopt the Restatement (Third) of Torts, § 54 (2012) to resolve the issues in these cases.
You can read the opinion in Oukbu here.
You can read the opinion in Kaur here.