92 N.E.3d 1166
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- On Dec. 21, 2012, Amber Hamilton (an invitee) was eating at a Steak ’n Shake when another group, led by Ricky Jackson, verbally taunted and threatened her and her brother for ~30 minutes.
- The antagonists blocked exits, pounded on windows, and repeatedly provoked a physical confrontation; Steak ’n Shake employees observed the escalation.
- Employees did not intervene or contact security/police while the harassment continued; the acting manager only told the groups to leave when a fight appeared imminent.
- A fight erupted near the register; Hamilton intervened, struck Jackson, and he then shot her at point-blank range, causing severe injury.
- Hamilton sued Steak ’n Shake for negligence (failure to protect from a third party’s criminal act). The trial court initially denied summary judgment for defendant, later granted it after reconsideration under recent Indiana Supreme Court precedent. Hamilton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steak ’n Shake owed a duty to protect Hamilton from a third party’s criminal act | Hamilton: the restaurant knew of an escalating, 30‑minute confrontation (threats, blocking exits, pounding windows), creating a foreseeable risk of serious harm and thus a duty to take precautions | Steak ’n Shake: under Goodwin/Rogers the broad class is a restaurant patron and broad harm is a third‑party criminal act; shootings in such venues are not foreseeable as a matter of law, so no duty existed | Reversed: court held that, given the restaurant’s knowledge of escalating threats and conduct, a duty existed to take reasonable steps to protect patrons (question of breach/proximate cause for factfinder) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (clarifies foreseeability as a component of duty; holds a shooting inside a bar is not automatically foreseeable as a matter of law)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (applies Goodwin framework; distinguishes duty to prevent unforeseeable violent acts from duty to aid or protect once owner knows of injury/threat)
- Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (recognizes reasonable foreseeability as element of proprietor’s duty to invitees)
- Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (foreseeability for duty uses general analysis of broad plaintiff and broad harm, distinct from proximate‑cause inquiry)
- Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347 (Tenn. 2008) (standard quoted for when likelihood of harm is sufficient to induce reasonable precautions)