Indiana Supreme Court Premises Liability Case Could Impact Every Slip and Fall Attorney in Indianapolis, IN

On January 15, 2026, the Indiana Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that may redefine how property owners across the state are held accountable when visitors are injured on their premises. The case, Simon Property Group, L.P. v. Kaya P.R. Stewart, et al. (No. 24A-CT-01700), centers on the 2022 Greenwood Park Mall shooting and whether a property owner’s duty to protect patrons extends to violent criminal acts. While the facts involve a mass shooting, the court’s ruling on foreseeability and duty of care will likely impact every premises liability claim in Indiana, including slip and fall cases affecting thousands of Hoosiers annually. If you’ve been hurt on someone else’s property in Indianapolis, Indiana, this decision could shape your claim’s strength.

How Indiana’s Duty-of-Care Framework Governs Premises Liability Claims

To understand why this case matters, you need to understand how Indiana determines when a property owner is legally responsible for an injury. Premises liability is an area of Indiana law that determines when a property owner or occupier may be responsible for injuries occurring on their land. The foundation of any claim is proving the property owner owed you a duty of care and breached it.

Indiana uses a status-based system to define the level of care a property owner must provide. The first step is determining what standard of care the landowner owed the injured person. Indiana law classifies visitors into three categories: trespassers, licensees, and invitees, with invitees owed the highest protection. If you are shopping at a grocery store, walking through a restaurant, or visiting an apartment complex, you are typically an invitee. The highest duty of care owed to invited guests, including social invitations and customers, is defined as "reasonable care."

Property owners must also address dangerous conditions they knew about or should have discovered through reasonable inspection. Under Indiana’s Premises Liability Law, property owners are responsible for injuries occurring because of unsafe property conditions when they knew about the risk or failed to take steps to fix it. This applies to wet floors, icy parking lots, broken handrails, and uneven sidewalks.

What the Stewart Case Means for Every Slip and Fall Attorney in Indianapolis, IN

The Stewart case began with a tragic act of violence, but the legal principles at stake extend far beyond that single event. The lawsuit was filed in January 2024 by Kaya Stewart, who was shot multiple times and sustained severe, life-threatening injuries, and her younger sister. Their attorneys assert that Simon Property Group and Allied Universal were negligent in not providing adequate security, allowing the gunman to enter carrying a large backpack containing several weapons and spend more than an hour in a restroom before the attack.

The property owner and its security contractor moved to dismiss the case, arguing they should bear no liability because the shooting was unforeseeable as a matter of law. Before the Indiana Supreme Court, arguments focused on applying existing precedent for determining foreseeability in premises liability cases. The trial court denied that motion, and in June, an appellate court panel upheld the trial court’s decision, leading the companies to appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Foreseeability Question at the Heart of the Dispute

Foreseeability is the legal concept that determines whether a property owner should have anticipated a particular type of harm. When examining foreseeability for purposes of duty, the question is whether the general type of harm was reasonably foreseeable. Courts do not focus on specific incident details, and judges, not juries, decide whether a duty exists as a matter of law.

This distinction is critical for slip and fall victims. If the Indiana Supreme Court narrows the foreseeability standard, it could make it harder for injured people to argue that a property owner should have anticipated dangers like pooling water, crumbling steps, or poorly lit walkways. Conversely, if the court affirms the lower courts’ broader view, it reinforces the principle that property owners must take reasonable steps to identify and address hazards. Indiana courts examine whether the property has experienced similar incidents in their foreseeability analyses. A history of similar incidents may show a risk was known or reasonably expected, whereas a lack of similar incidents may suggest the harm was too unpredictable to anticipate.

A Scenario Indianapolis Residents Should Consider

Imagine an older adult visiting a chain restaurant on East Washington Street during a winter evening. The parking lot has patches of refrozen ice present for days. There are no salt treatments, warning signs, or alternative walkways. The visitor slips, fractures a hip, and faces months of rehabilitation, mounting medical bills, and lost income. Under Indiana’s current framework, this visitor, an invitee, would argue the restaurant knew or should have known about the icy conditions and had a duty to address them. A slip and fall attorney in Indianapolis would need to establish that the hazard was foreseeable and that the restaurant breached its duty of reasonable care.

The outcome of Stewart could affect how courts evaluate whether that restaurant’s failure to salt the lot was a foreseeable danger. Every premises liability case, whether involving violent crime or ice, turns on the same core legal question: should the property owner have seen the risk coming?

Protecting Your Premises Liability Claim: What Indianapolis Victims Must Do

If you are injured in a slip and fall incident on someone else’s property, the steps you take immediately afterward can determine whether your claim succeeds. Indiana law imposes strict rules on evidence, deadlines, and fault allocation that every injured person should understand.

Here are essential steps to protect your rights:

• Document everything at the scene. Photograph the hazard, whether ice, wet floor, broken stair, or poor lighting, before the property owner repairs it.
• Report the incident in writing. Notify the property owner or manager and request a copy of any incident report. Ask about maintenance logs and security footage.
• Seek medical attention immediately. Even if injuries seem minor, a medical record ties your condition directly to the fall and prevents insurers from claiming pre-existing causes.
• Note any witnesses. Get names and contact information from anyone who saw the fall or hazardous condition.
• Do not give recorded statements to insurance adjusters without first speaking to an attorney. Premises liability cases are often highly contested because property owners and their insurance companies will fight to avoid responsibility.

Indiana’s Comparative Fault Rule and the Filing Deadline

Indiana follows a modified comparative fault system that can reduce or eliminate your recovery. Indiana adopted the "modified comparative fault rule," under which a plaintiff’s damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. If the plaintiff is considered more than 50% at fault for the accident, the plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages. If a property owner argues you were distracted by your phone or wearing inappropriate footwear, it could affect your compensation.

You also face a strict filing deadline. An Indiana statute of limitations sets a deadline for bringing an action for compensation in premises liability cases. People injured on another person’s property have two years from the date of their injury to file a complaint, pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-11-2-4. Courts interpret exceptions narrowly. Claims against government entities, such as the City of Indianapolis, require a separate tort claim notice before litigation can begin, a process with its own distinct timeline.

How Does This Impact Me?

Does the Stewart case apply to my slip and fall claim?

Yes, indirectly. While the case involves a shooting rather than a slip and fall, the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling on foreseeability and duty of care will set a statewide precedent. How broadly or narrowly the court defines a property owner’s obligation to anticipate and prevent harm will affect premises liability claims of all types across Indiana.

How long do I have to file a lawsuit after a slip and fall in Indianapolis?

Under Indiana Code § 34-11-2-4, you generally have two years from the date of your injury to file a premises liability lawsuit. Missing this deadline may permanently bar your claim. Certain narrow exceptions may apply, but you should not rely on them without professional legal guidance from a slip and fall attorney in Indianapolis, IN.

What if the property owner says I was partially at fault?

Indiana’s comparative fault law means your compensation may be reduced by your share of responsibility. If the property owner or insurer argues you were more than 50% at fault, you could be barred from recovering anything. Thorough evidence, photographs, witness statements, and maintenance records, can help demonstrate that the property owner bore the greater share of fault.

What compensation can I recover?

A successful premises liability plaintiff may recover economic damages such as medical bills and lost wages, as well as non-economic damages like pain and suffering. In some situations, an injured party can also recover punitive damages if the property owner acted with malice, fraud, or gross negligence. Every case is different, and outcomes depend on the specific facts and evidence presented.

Should I talk to an insurance adjuster before consulting an attorney?

It is generally advisable to speak with a qualified attorney first. Property owners and insurers commonly defend these cases by claiming they were unaware of the hazard, blaming the victim for not paying attention, or arguing the injury was caused by a pre-existing condition. An experienced personal injury attorney can help protect your rights before you provide any recorded statements.

What the Stewart Decision Means for Injured Hoosiers Going Forward

The Indiana Supreme Court’s forthcoming ruling in Simon Property Group v. Stewart has the potential to clarify and possibly reshape the foreseeability standard that underpins every premises liability case in the state. For Indianapolis residents hurt in slip and fall incidents at stores, restaurants, apartment complexes, parking lots, or public sidewalks, this decision will influence how courts evaluate whether a property owner should have anticipated and addressed the dangerous condition that caused your injury. Regardless of the outcome, the core elements of a strong claim remain: documenting the hazard, preserving evidence, seeking prompt medical care, and acting within Indiana’s two-year statute of limitations.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes in premises liability cases depend on the specific facts and circumstances of each situation.

If you or a loved one has been injured in a slip and fall on someone else’s property in Indianapolis, the legal team at Poynter & Bucheri can help you understand your options. To discuss the details of your situation, call (317) 406-7443 or schedule a consultation online. Acting quickly can help preserve critical evidence and protect your right to pursue fair compensation.