Yerano Martinez v. Jeffrey Smith

── Yerano Martinez v. Jeffrey Smith ── Court: Indiana Supreme Court Date: April 08, 2026 Author: Christopher Goff Category: General FILED Apr 08 2026, 1:11 pm CLERK Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals and Tax Court IN THE Indiana Supreme Court Supreme Court Case No. 26S-CT-112 Yerano Martinez and Jessica Martinez Appellants (Plaintiffs below) –v– Jeffrey Smith, et al. Appellees (Defendants below) Argued: June 5, 2025 | Decided: April 8, 2026 Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49D05-2005-CT-15308 The Honorable John M.T. Chavis II, Judge On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 24A-CT-1272 Opinion by Justice Goff Chief Justice Rush and Justice Massa concur. Justice Molter concurs with separate opinion in which Chief Justice Rush joins as to Parts II–IV. Justice Slaughter dissents with separate opinion. Goff, Justice. In Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., this Court adopted a bright-line rule under which “landowners owe a duty to passing motorists on adjacent highways not to create hazardous conditions that visit themselves upon the roadway” but have no such obligation when the land use or condition is “wholly contained on a landowner’s property.”1 In this case, we’re tasked with clarifying what we meant in Reece by the term “roadway.” Is the duty to refrain from creating hazardous conditions confined to the surface of the road itself? Or does that duty encompass something more? We hold that the common-law duty under Reece to refrain from creating hazardous conditions encompasses not just the paved portion of the roadway but also traffic-control devices within the public right-of-way. And because the hazardous condition here, by the landowner’s own admission, amounted to such an impermissible encroachment, we hold that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment in favor of the landowner. Accordingly, we reverse. Facts and Procedural History On the afternoon of Halloween Day 2019, Yerano Martinez drove through a stop sign located at the intersection of County Road 300 North and State Road 19 in Miami County, colliding with a truck and sustaining serious injuries. At the time of the accident, the stop sign was allegedly obscured by an overgrown bush located on property owned by Jeffrey Smith and extending partially into Miami County’s right-of-way. Martinez sued, alleging that Smith, despite his duty to passing motorists, failed to maintain his property to “discover and remedy obstructions 1 173 N.E.3d 1031, 1034 (Ind. 2021) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 26S-CT-112 | April 8, 2026 Page 2 of 13 impeding the view of the stop sign.”2 App. Vol. 2, p. 27. Smith moved for summary judgment, arguing that, because the bush didn’t intrude upon the roadway, he owed no duty of care under this Court’s decision in Reece v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 173 N.E.3d 1031 (Ind. 2021). Martinez responded by arguing that the bush was located in the public right-of-way, so Smith had a duty to protect passing motorists under Reece. The trial court entered summary judgment for Smith, explaining the “difference between a right of way and a roadway” and concluding that Reece “did not extend” the landowner’s duty to the former. App. Vol. 2, pp. 21–22. In a unanimous opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, hol