April Goodwin, Tiffany Randolph, and Javon Washington v. Yeakle's Sports Bar and Grill, Inc.
28 N.E.3d 310
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Early morning bar shooting at Yeakle’s in Marion: patron Rodney Carter shot three plaintiffs (Goodwin, Randolph, Washington); all survived. Yeakle’s prohibited guns on premises.
- Plaintiffs sued the bar for negligence: alleged failures to provide security, search Carter, and warn that he was armed/dangerous.
- Bar moved for summary judgment arguing the criminal acts were not reasonably foreseeable, so it owed no duty to protect.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the bar; plaintiffs appealed.
- Court of Appeals framed the case as a premises-liability duty question: whether the bar owed a duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts and whether foreseeability is part of the duty inquiry.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bar owed a duty to protect invitees from third-party criminal acts | Bar owed a duty to take reasonable precautions to protect invitees (plaintiffs relied on established landowner duties) | No duty because Carter’s criminal actions were not reasonably foreseeable | Duty exists as a matter of law: proprietors owe invitees reasonable care to protect from foreseeable criminal acts; duty here is well-established |
| Whether foreseeability is a question for duty or breach at summary judgment | Foreseeability can show breach but does not negate the established duty | Foreseeability is required to establish that a duty exists; thus summary judgment proper if unforeseeable | Foreseeability is a factual issue for breach (not for negating duty when duty is well-established); bar failed to negate duty element on summary judgment |
| Whether summary judgment was proper | Plaintiffs argued triable issues of fact remain about breach/foreseeability | Bar argued it negated duty as a matter of law by showing unforeseeability | Summary judgment reversed; trial court erred because bar did not meet its burden to negate duty element |
| Standard for determining duty when precedent conflicts | Plaintiffs urged application of Sharp/Bartolini/Yost (no duty redetermination where duty is established) | Bar relied on precedent applying totality/Webb balancing to duty | Court followed most recent supreme-court guidance (Yost/Bartolini/Sharp): where duty is established, Webb balancing isn’t needed; resolve foreseeability in breach phase |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (articulated three-factor balancing test for duty inquiries)
- N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 2003) (duty need not be redetermined where well-established)
- Paragon Family Rest. v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (landowners owe invitees reasonable care to protect against foreseeable criminal attacks; jury decides breach)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (discussed court’s role in assessing foreseeability and totality of circumstances for duty elements)
- Yost v. Wabash College, 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (reaffirmed Sharp/Bartolini: established landowner duties mean Webb balancing is unnecessary; foreseeability assessed within duty contours and breach)
- Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (summarized negligence elements and noted Webb test as a tool when duty is not articulated)