An Indiana appeals court has revived a security guard’s negligence case against Indiana University Health (IU Health) after he was struck by a car outside a hospital in Indianapolis in 2017. Paul McGann was injured when two suspected phone thieves drove into him while fleeing the hospital parking lot. He had accused the hospital of failing to install or maintain speed bumps and barricades that could have prevented vehicles from hitting pedestrians. On November 6, the court overturned a lower court’s decision in favour of the hospital and sent the case back for further proceedings.According to details of the case available on Justia, the incident took place on August 9, 2017, at IU Health Methodist Hospital. McGann, who was a police officer, was working off-duty as a security guard at the hospital. He was employed through Calvert Asset & Property Protection, a subcontractor of the security company hired by IU Health.The trouble began when a woman reported that two people had stolen her phone in the hospital’s emergency department parking lot. Hospital police officers reached the spot and approached the suspects as their car was pulling out of a parking space.The officers asked them to stop and questioned them about the stolen phone. McGann also arrived at the scene and stood in front of their car. The vehicle suddenly accelerated, hit him and sped away. McGann suffered injuries.
Security guard sued the hospital
In August 2019, McGann filed a negligence case against IU Health. He argued that the hospital was responsible for keeping its premises reasonably safe for people visiting or working there.He alleged that the hospital had failed to maintain speed bumps or barricades that could stop vehicles from hitting pedestrians. He also accused it of failing to keep the property reasonably safe.McGann initially included James Calvert, who owned the security firm, in the lawsuit. He alleged that Calvert had failed to provide the required training, equipment and insurance. However, Calvert was later removed from the case.In November 2025, IU Health asked the trial court to dismiss the case without a full trial. The hospital argued that it had no responsibility to control the people who were fleeing after the reported phone theft.McGann opposed the request. He said the hospital had focused on the wrong issue. His complaint was not just about whether the hospital should have controlled the suspects. He had also accused it of failing to maintain speed bumps and barricades in the parking lot.He argued that these allegations concerned the safety of the hospital premises and needed to be considered separately.The hospital maintained that McGann had not provided evidence showing that speed bumps or barricades would have prevented the accident. The trial court eventually ruled in favour of IU Health without giving a detailed explanation. McGann then challenged that decision before the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Why the appeals court overturned the decision
The appeals court examined the arguments made by both sides and found that the hospital had not properly addressed McGann’s claim about the parking lot’s safety.The court explained that property owners have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to protect people on their premises from risks they could foresee.It also pointed out that McGann’s complaint specifically mentioned missing speed bumps and barricades. This meant his allegation concerned the physical condition of the hospital’s property.However, IU Health’s request to dismiss the case had focused only on whether it was responsible for controlling the suspects who drove away. The hospital had not directly challenged the allegation about the missing barriers.The court said the hospital first needed to address that claim before expecting McGann to produce evidence in response.It also examined the police report and supplementary report submitted by IU Health. These documents described how McGann was struck by the car but did not provide details about the parking lot’s layout or condition.As a result, the reports did not establish that the hospital’s parking area was reasonably safe or disprove McGann’s allegation.The hospital later argued that McGann had failed to show how speed bumps or barricades could have prevented his injuries. However, the appeals court said IU Health could not raise this issue for the first time in its reply after McGann had already responded to its original request.The court said a person responding to such a request must be allowed to address the arguments actually raised by the other side.The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the hospital had not properly challenged McGann’s allegation about the condition of its premises. It therefore overturned the earlier decision in IU Health’s favour. The case has now been sent back to the lower court for further proceedings.
Leave a Reply