OPINION
MAY, Judge.
Bloomington Hospital treated Malia Vandeneede for injuries she said she sustained when she fell off a horse onto some debris. After treatment, she was discharged into her former husband’s custody. He killed her on their way home, then killed himself. Ava McSwane, Malia’s mother and personal representative, sued the Hospital and Dr. Jean Eelma, who treated Malia, asserting they had a duty to protect her from the domestic violence. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Hospital and Doctor on the grounds they had no duty toward Malia and Malia was contributorily negligent. We affirm the summary judgment for the Doctor but reverse the summary judgment for the Hospital.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
Malia and Monty Vandeneede were married for about a year. They divorced, but continued to live together for another two years. Monty took Malia to Bloomington Hospital for treatment of lacerations on November 25, 2002. Malia told the triage nurse she had fallen off a horse and landed on debris. She had a deep laceration to her palm that “went well into the muscle,” (App. at 252), and a deep laceration and puncture to her thigh. She reported arm and wrist pain.
The nurse noted Monty would not let her get close to Malia and he was answering questions for Malia. The nurse noted other “things that started tipping me off maybe that she ... wasn’t wearing any underwear, riding a horse, and then the clothing that she was wearing wasn’t dirty[.]” (Id. at 220) (ellipses in original). This suggested to the nurse “[j]ust that something was wrong. She probably didn’t fall off a horse.” (Id. at 221.) At one point when Monty was looking away, the nurse pointed to a “domestic violence piece of paper,” (id. at 222), in the triage room so Malia could “see that it was there, and she shook her head violently.” (Id. at 223.)
According to McSwane, a Hospital policy “required that suspicions of spousal abuse, after screening, be conveyed to the attending physician.”2 (Br. of Appellants at 5.) [248]*248The triage nurse testified that after Malia was taken to see the doctor, the nurse called to “try to alert somebody that I thought something was happening here. And maybe we should get security back there.” (App. at 223.) She did not recall to whom she spoke and the Hospital could not identify anyone who received such a call. McSwane directs us to no evidence the triage nurse conveyed any such suspicion to the emergency room physician who next saw Malia.
Malia was in the triage and emergency rooms for about five hours before she was transferred to Dr. Eelma, a surgeon. The emergency room doctor had called Dr. Eelma and told her his patient had some puncture wounds that would need to be sutured in surgery. A surgical nurse felt uncomfortable in the same room with Ma-lia and Monty, because Monty “had a defensive stance, and ... like he was looking right through you.” (Id. at 846) (ellipses in original). Malia “seemed to be somewhat guarded. Careful of what she would say ... always aware of exactly where he was ... before she answered anything.” (Id.) This caused the nurse to suspect Monty might have been involved in Malia’s injury. After Monty went to the waiting room, Malia “stuck to her story” that she had been thrown from a horse, (id. at 847), and that allayed the nurse’s concerns.
Dr. Eelma told the surgical nurse Ma-lia’s mother had said the injuries did not occur as Malia said they had. The nurse opined to the Doctor it was “not unreasonable to believe what [Malia] was telling us.” (Id. at 854.)3 The nurse testified Malia was asleep at the time of that conversation but other hospital employees in the room would have overheard it.
McSwane arrived at the hospital while Malia was being treated and told a nurse Monty had beaten Malia with a fireplace poker. Security was contacted, and McSwane called Monroe and Owen County police, who apparently did not respond. A nurse in the Post Anesthesia Care Unit who attended Malia after surgery was told domestic violence might be involved and security had been called. He found Malia calm and oriented, and Malia told the nurse she wanted to go home. Monty was cooperative and was not coaching Malia. However, that nurse told some co-workers Monty “is actually creeping the hell out of me,” (id. at 122), and he suspected Monty might have inflicted the injuries. The nurse noted Monty was “really good at throwing off non-verbal intimidation.” (Id. at 124.) Eventually Malia signed the instructions for discharge and said she understood them.
Security accompanied Malia out of the Hospital. The charge nurse told Malia she did not have to leave and could stay at the Hospital. Malia declined. Security officers described Monty as compliant and not threatening. Malia was described as having “her right mind.” (Id. at 511.) McSwane pleaded with Malia not to leave with Monty but Malia told her to “stay out of their business.” (Id. at 378.) Malia was asked if she wanted to press charges [249]*249against Monty or leave with him, and she said she wanted to go home.
Soon after Malia was discharged Monty killed her, then committed suicide. McSwane brought a medical malpractice complaint, and McSwane, the Hospital, and Dr. Eelma all moved for a preliminary determination of law.4 The Doctor and Hospital moved for and were granted summary judgment.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rhoades v. Heritage Invs., LLC, 839 N.E.2d 788, 791 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. denied 860 N.E.2d 584 (Ind.2006). When reviewing a decision on a summary judgment motion, we stand in the shoes of the trial court. Id. A grant of summary judgment is clothed with a presumption of validity. Id.
A medical malpractice case based on negligence is rarely appropriate for disposal by summary judgment, Mills v. Berrios, 851 N.E.2d 1066, 1070 (Ind.Ct.App.2006), but whether a duty exists on the part of a particular defendant to conform his conduct to a certain standard for the benefit of the plaintiff generally is a question of law. Harris v. Raymond, 715 N.E.2d 388, 393 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied.
1. Dr. Eelma’s Duty
McSwane asserts Dr. Eelma had a statutory duty to Malia to report her abuse based on Ind.Code § 35-47-7-1, which provides in pertinent part “every case of a wound which is likely to or may result in death and is actually or apparently inflicted by a knife, ice pick, or other sharp or pointed instrument, shall be reported at- once to the law enforcement authorities ... [by] the physician attending or treating the case.” (Emphasis supplied.) She quotes James T.R. Jones, Battered Spouses’ Damage Actions Against Non-reporting Physicians, 45 DePaul L.R. 191, 247 (1996), for the premise the “statutory negligence doctrine ... generates a special relationship, and hence a duty, where there otherwise might not be one.”
McSwane’s argument premised on Ind. Code § 35-47-7-1 is waived because it was not raised below and was instead raised for the first time in McSwane’s appellate brief.5 See Carr v. Pearman, 860 N.E.2d 863, 871 n. 3 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (appellant who presents an issue for the first time on appeal waives the issue for purposes of appellate review), trans. denied 869 N.E.2d 462 (Ind.2007). We accordingly affirm summary judgment for Dr. Eelma.
2. The Hospital’s Duty
The Hospital was not entitled to summary judgment on the ground it had no duty to Malia. Whether there is a specific duty not to discharge a patient to the care of a suspected abuser is a question of first impression. We hold such a duty might sometimes be included in a hospital’s general duty of care toward a patient, or in the alternative might arise by virtue of statutory requirements to report abuse of certain endangered adults. Therefore, under the facts before us summary judgment for the Hospital on the ground it had no such duty was error.
[250]*250Hospitals owe their patients a duty to exercise reasonable care in rendering hospital services; this includes a duty to safeguard the welfare of its patients from harm inflicted by third persons. See generally 41 C.J.S. Hospitals § 35 (2006). A hospital has a duty to protect a patient from dangers that might result from external circumstances peculiarly within the hospital’s control. Id. The extent and character of the care a hospital owes its patients depends on the circumstances of each particular case, but is circumscribed by those risks that are reasonably foreseeable. Id.
On the question of a hospital’s duty to protect patients from third persons, we find instructive N.X. v. Cabrini Medical Center, 97 N.Y.2d 247, 739 N.Y.S.2d 348, 765 N.E.2d 844 (2002). There N.X., a patient, sued the hospital for injuries she sustained when a surgical resident sexually assaulted her. The Court of Appeals held the patient could not recover under the doctrine of respondeat superior, but found summary judgment precluded by fact issues as to whether nurses who were present at the time of the assault failed to adequately protect N.X. The Court explained the scope of a hospital’s duty:
A hospital has a duty to safeguard the welfare of its patients, even from harm inflicted by third persons, measured by the capacity of the patient to provide for his or her own safety. This sliding scale of duty is limited, however; it does not render a hospital an insurer of patient safety or require it to keep each patient under constant surveillance. As with any liability in tort, the scope of a hospital’s duty is circumscribed by those risks which are reasonably foreseeable.
Id., 739 N.Y.S.2d 348, 765 N.E.2d at 848 (citations omitted). It found under “the settled hospital-patient duty equation” there were issues of fact as to whether nurses “actually observed or unreasonably ignored events immediately preceding the misconduct which indicated a risk of imminent harm” to N.X. that triggered the need for protective action. Id.
The hospital characterized the sexual assault of a patient by a physician having no known history of sexual misconduct as a risk so remote that, as a matter of law, it could not have been reasonably foreseeable. The Court rejected the hospital’s use of that reasoning to avoid “liability for actually observed or readily observable misconduct committed in the very presence of hospital employees.” Id. Thus, the question was whether the hospital’s nurses had a duty to protect N.X. once there were acts or events suggesting an assault was about to take place. N.X. identified several unusual circumstances surrounding the resident’s appearance in the recovery room that should have alerted the nurses that N.X. was in obvious jeopardy of imminent harm.
From “this confluence of factors” the Court found “a sufficient basis from which a jury could determine that the nurses unreasonably disregarded that which was readily there to be seen and heard, alerting them to the risk of misconduct” that could have been prevented. Id., 739 N.Y.S.2d 348, 765 N.E.2d at 849.
The Court emphasized its holding did not establish a broader duty toward patients than that historically placed on hospitals:
We simply hold that observations and information known to or readily perceivable by hospital staff that there is a risk of harm to a patient under the circumstances can be sufficient to trigger the duty to protect. This commonsense approach safeguards patients when there is reason to take action for their protection and does not burden the practice of [251]*251medicine or intrude upon the traditional relationship between doctors and nurses.
Id.
McSwane, like NX, designated evidence of “actually observed or readily observable” conduct and information that could have alerted the Hospital there was a risk of harm to Malia. That evidence provided, as it did in N.X., a sufficient basis from which a jury could determine the Hospital “unreasonably disregarded that which was readily there to be seen and heard,” alerting it to the risk of misconduct that could have been prevented. Summary judgment for the Hospital in the case before us was therefore improper.
The standard articulated in N.X. is consistent with our explanation of the extent of a hospital’s duty toward a patient in Breese v. State, 449 N.E.2d 1098 (Ind.Ct.App.1983), superseded on other grounds by Ogle v. St. John’s Hickey Memorial Hosp., 473 N.E.2d 1055 (Ind.Ct.App.1985), reh’g denied, trans. denied. Breese involved a wrongful death action arising from suicide by a patient in a mental hospital. Hospital personnel were made aware Breese had exhibited suicidal behavior while at another hospital by a statement in a “transfer record” and a phoned request for admission. The transfer record was a single sheet of paper that contained the statement “Persistent suicidal behavior — recommend full precautions.” Id. at 1102.
Breese’s father testified he told hospital personnel seven or eight times about his son’s suicidal gestures or attempts at other hospitals. He offered to arrange to have friends and relatives watch Breese continuously if the staff could not properly watch him, but was assured the hospital could do so. Breese’s admitting and treating physician diagnosed him as paranoid, schizophrenic, and suicidal and ordered suicidal precautions, but testified when Breese was admitted he was cooperative and seemed “almost optimistic.” Id. However, in a document summarizing Breese’s admission status, the doctor reported Breese was anxious and fidgeting around in the chair throughout the interview. At times he would raise his voice abruptly to an “anxious whine.” Id. There was a “flat facial feature and flat tone of voice ... [Breese’s] insight and judgment were both felt to be poor.” Id. After Breese was admitted he ate well, talked with ward personnel and other patients, and took his medication without objection. But a visitor testified when he tried to visit Breese and was told to leave by an orderly, Breese seemed “kinda wild eyed.” Id. A ward nurse noted that when Breese went to his room after dinner he had a strange look on his face. Breese later hung himself.
In addressing jury instructions, we articulated the scope of the hospital’s duty in light of that conflicting evidence:
The duty of a mental hospital to exercise reasonable care in the treatment of a patient with known suicidal tendencies is not disputed. [The hospital] argues that Breese’s tendered instruction would have informed that jury that a mental hospital is required not only to use reasonable care in treating the patient for his illness, but also to safeguard him from self-inflicted injury or death, and that there is no basis in Indiana law for extending a mental hospital’s duty beyond that of reasonable care. We disagree with [the hospital’s] assertion that the tendered instruction extends the requisite standard.
Breese’s tendered instruction # 7 does not place a duty upon a mental hospital to insure that a patient does not commit suicide; rather it would have informed the jury of the hospital’s obligation to use reasonable care in performing two distinct functions: in treating the patient’s illness, and in safeguarding the patient from self-inflicted injury or death. In addition, the ten[252]*252dered instruction would have informed the jury of the effect that the hospital’s knowledge of [Breese’s] prior suicide attempts and methods used had upon its duty to exercise reasonable care.
⅜ ⅜ # ⅜
“While a hospital or sanitorium conducted for private gain is not an insurer of its patients against injuries inflicted by them, it is required to use ordinary care in the treatment and care thereof. In determining ordinary care in such cases it is proper to consider the physical and mental ailments of the patient which may affect his ability to look after his own safety.”
Id. at 1103-04 (citations omitted).6
We believe a hospital’s duty of reasonable care requires consideration of evidence its patient is a victim of domestic abuse,7 just as it requires consideration of “the physical and mental ailments of the patient which may affect his ability to look after his own safety.” Id. at 1104. Summary judgment for the Hospital in the case before us on the ground it owed Malia no duty was error.
McSwane also argues the Hospital assumed a duty to intervene in cases of suspected spousal abuse because it had a written policy to protect abuse victims and it trained-its employees to separate abusers and their victims.8 The policy, titled “Adult Abuse — Spouse or Significant Other,” (App. at 938), has a stated purpose to “outline precautions and legal responsibilities to protect victims of adult abuse/ spouse or significant other,” id., and to “protect all adult patients diagnosed as [253]*253victims of battering; suspected cases of battering and/or unexplained injuries in which battering is to be ruled out.” (Id.) The policy requires Hospital workers to “report suspected cases of battery, neglect, or exploitation if the patient falls within the “endangered adult” guidelines. (Id.) “Report of abuse of independent adults is voluntary.” (Id.)
The Hospital’s “endangered adult” guidelines do not appear to be included in the Appendix,9 and we are therefore unable to determine whether the Hospital might have assumed a duty pursuant to its own policy. However, our legislature has imposed statutory requirements which, like the Hospital policy, require reporting of suspected abuse of “endangered” adults. We believe there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether, under the circumstances before us, those statutes gave rise to a tort duty on the Hospital’s part toward Malia. Summary judgment was therefore improper on that ground.
A person who believes or has reason to believe an endangered adult is the victim of battery, neglect, or exploitation, but knowingly fails to report the facts supporting that belief to the appropriate social services or law enforcement entities, commits a Class B misdemeanor. Ind.Code § 35-46-1-13. An “endangered adult” is an individual who is 1) at least eighteen years of age; 2) unable by reason of a physical or mental incapacity of providing or directing the provision of self-care; and 3) harmed or threatened with harm as a result of neglect, battery, or exploitation of the individual’s personal services or property. Ind.Code § 12-10-3-2.
Under traditional tort doctrines a violation of a statutory obligation may give rise to a civil damage claim. Cantrell v. Morris, 849 N.E.2d 488, 497 (Ind.2006). The Second Restatement of Torts supports a common law tort damage remedy for some statutory violations. It provides:
When a legislative provision protects a class of persons by proscribing or requiring certain conduct but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness of the provision, accord to an injured member of the class a right of action, using a suitable existing tort action or a new cause of action analogous to an existing tort action.
Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A (1979)). To invoke this doctrine, a plaintiff must be a member of the class of citizens the statute is designed to protect. Id. Whether a civil damage claim is available depends on legislative intent. Id. at 497-98.
Our Indiana courts have a “long and continuous” history of recognizing negligence actions for statutory violations. Kho v. Pennington, 875 N.E.2d 208, 212 (Ind.2007). The unexcused violation of a statutory duty is negligence per se “if the statute or ordinance is intended to protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included and to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation.” Id. at 212-13. The Kho Court noted the Restatement provides:
[254]*254The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part
(a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and
(b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and
(c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and
(d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.
Id. (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286).
Section 35-46-1-18 meets that standard. We are directed to no Indiana decisions explicitly addressing whether a violation of the duty fixed by Ind.Code § 35-46-1-13 is negligence per se. We find instructive Sabia v. State, 164 Vt. 293, 669 A.2d 1187 (1995), where sexual abuse victims sued a state agency for failure to protect them from further abuse after repeated reports of abuse. The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings in favor of the state, but the supreme court held the agency had a tort duty to protect the victims from continued abuse.
A Vermont statute provided the agency shall commence an investigation after receipt of a report of child abuse, shall seek to determine the identity of the abuser and the risk if the child remains in the existing home, and, if the investigation produces evidence of abuse or neglect, the agency shall provide assistance to the child. The stated purposes of those provisions was to protect children whose health and welfare may be adversely affected through abuse or neglect, to strengthen the family and make the home safe for children, and to provide a nurturing and safe environment for children. The Sabia court found it “beyond dispute that the relevant statutory provisions create a duty on the part of [the agency] to assist a particular class of persons to which plaintiffs belong and to prevent the type of harm suffered by plaintiffs.” Id. at 1192.
Our legislature offers no explicit statement of the purpose of chapter 35^6-1, “Offenses against the Family,” but it is apparent it is intended to “protect the class of persons in which the plaintiff is included [i.e., endangered adults as defined in Ind.Code § 12-10-3-2] and to protect against the risk of the type of harm which has occurred as a result of its violation [ie., battery, neglect, or exploitation as defined elsewhere in the code].” See Kho, 875 N.E.2d at 212-13.
There was evidence before the trial court that Malia was, in the space of a few hours while she was at the Hospital, given a general anesthetic, a relaxant, and numerous doses of various opiates for pain, and was advised by the Hospital not to make any important decisions. As explained below, this gives rise to a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her “mental condition and/or physical incapacities” were properly taken into account in addressing her contributory negligence.
For the same reason, we find a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Malia might have been an “endangered adult” by virtue of her “physical or mental incapacity of ... providing or directing the provision of self-care; and ... harmed or threatened with harm as a result of.: battery,” Ind.Code § 12-10-3-2(b), and if so, whether the Hospital was negligent per se for failure to properly report, pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-46-1-13, that Malia might have been a victim of battery. Summary judgment for the Hospital was accordingly improper on that ground.
[255]*2553. Contributory Negligence
Both sides asked the trial court for a preliminary determination regarding contributory negligence, and the court found that even if the Hospital owed Malia a duty and breached it, Malia’s own actions were a complete bar to recovery.
In most Indiana actions for negligence, a plaintiffs contributory fault does not bar recovery unless it exceeds fifty percent of the total fault proximately contributing to the damages. Otherwise, it operates only to reduce a plaintiffs damages in proportion to fault. Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5, -6; Funston v. School Town of Munster, 849 N.E.2d 595, 598 (Ind.2006). However, the Indiana Comparative Fault Act expressly excludes application to medical malpractice actions, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-1, so the common law defense of contributory negligence remains available to the Hospital and Doctor. Therefore, even a slight degree of negligence on Malia’s part, if proximately contributing to her claimed damages, will operate as a total bar to McSwane’s action. See Funston, 849 N.E.2d at 598.
Contributory negligence is generally a question of fact and is not an appropriate matter for summary judgment if there are conflicting factual inferences. Id. at 599. But where the facts are undisputed and only a single inference can reasonably be drawn therefrom, the question of contributory negligence becomes one of law. Id.
The trial court noted Malia had opportunities to inform the Hospital staff her injuries were not from a fall, yet she consistently told the staff her injuries were from a fall. She was told she could remain at the Hospital rather than leave with Monty, but she left with him. However, we believe Malia’s contributory negligence is a factual issue inappropriate for summary judgment because her physical and mental condition were not adequately taken into account.
A plaintiff is contributorily negligent when her conduct falls below the standard to which she should conform for her own protection and safety. Id. Lack of reasonable care that an ordinary person would exercise in like or similar circumstances is the factor on which the presence or absence of negligence depends. Id. Expressed another way, contributory negligence is the failure of a person to exercise for her own safety that degree of care and caution an ordinary, reasonable, and prudent person in a similar situation would exercise. Id. at 599. A patient may be contributorily negligent if she gives her doctor false or incomplete information when she is capable of providing an accurate history. Fall v. White, 449 N.E.2d 628, 633 (Ind.Ct.App.1983).
Departure from that general rule is required where the plaintiff is suffering from physical infirmities that impair her ability to function as an ordinary reasonable person: “The proper test to be applied in such cases is the test of a reasonable person under the same disabilities and infirmities in like circumstances. On the issue of contributory negligence, mental condition and/or physical incapacities are factors to be considered.” Memorial Hospital of South Bend, Inc. v. Scott, 261 Ind. 27, 36, 300 N.E.2d 50, 56 (1973).
After Malia arrived at the hospital she was given three doses of Dilaudid.10 Before her surgery Malia was given two milli[256]*256grams of Versed, which is “a customary pre-op medication ... [t]o relax the par tient before they [sic] go into surgery.” (App. at 255.) About fifteen minutes later she was given a general anesthetic for her surgery. The instructions the Hospital gave her concerning the anesthetic indicated the anesthetic would be active in her body for twenty-four hours and she should not drive, operate machinery, or “make any important decisions such as signing any important papers.” (Id. at 180.) After surgery she was given two doses of morphine as pain medication.
We acknowledge the absence in the record of any designated evidence Malia was, because of the medication, not competent to make the decisions she made. But in light of the evidence Malia was, in the space of a few hours while she was at the Hospital, given a general anesthetic, a relaxant, and numerous doses of various opiates for pain, and was therefore advised by the Hospital not to “make any important decisions,” we believe there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether her “mental condition and/or physical incapacities” were properly taken into account in addressing her contributory negligence. Scott, 261 Ind. at 36, 300 N.E.2d at 56. Summary judgment on that ground was inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
A hospital has a statutory duty to report suspected abuse of an endangered adult, and its independent duty to safeguard its patient from dangers that might result from circumstances within the hospital’s control extends to the discharge of a patient into the custody of the person who allegedly inflicted the injuries that necessitated her hospitalization. The Hospital therefore should not have been granted summary judgment on the ground it owed Malia no duty. In light of the conflicting factual inferences as to Malia’s contributory negligence, summary judgment for the Hospital on that ground was also improper.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
ROBB, J., concurs.
BAKER, C.J., dissents with opinion.