April Goodwin, Tiffany Randolph and Javon Washington v. Yeakle's Sports Bar and Grill, Inc.
2016 Ind. LEXIS 756
| Ind. | 2016Background
- On Aug. 27–28, 2010, three patrons (Goodwin, Randolph, Washington) were shot inside Yeakle’s Sports Bar when another patron, Rodney Carter, fired a handgun; all survived and Carter later pleaded guilty to battery with a deadly weapon.
- Plaintiffs sued the Bar for negligence, alleging failure to provide security, failure to search Carter for weapons, and failure to warn that Carter was armed and dangerous.
- The Bar moved for summary judgment, arguing Carter’s criminal act was not foreseeable and thus the Bar owed no duty to prevent it; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Bar.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that reasonable foreseeability is not part of the duty analysis for a bar; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to resolve doctrinal confusion.
- The Supreme Court held that (1) landowners/proprietors owe invitees a duty to take reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal acts, (2) foreseeability can be a component of duty and is for the court to decide, but (3) foreseeability for duty is a broader, lesser inquiry than foreseeability for proximate cause, and (4) a shooting inside a neighborhood bar is not foreseeable as a matter of law on the facts presented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a legal duty exists for a bar to protect patrons from third‑party criminal acts | Bar owed duty to provide security and warn; shooting was a foreseeable risk of bars | No duty because the shooting was not reasonably foreseeable as a matter of law | Duty exists generally, but foreseeability is a threshold court question; here no duty arose because the specific harm was not foreseeable |
| Whether foreseeability is part of the duty analysis | Foreseeability should factor into duty to hold proprietors liable | Same but disputes scope; Plaintiffs urged broad foreseeability | Court: foreseeability is a component of duty and must be decided by the court when applicable |
| Standard for assessing foreseeability at the duty stage | Foreseeability should be evaluated fact‑specifically (totality test) | Foreseeability for duty should be a broader, categorical inquiry distinct from proximate‑cause analysis | Court adopts Goldsberry approach: duty‑stage foreseeability is a general likelihood inquiry (lesser/broader) distinct from proximate‑cause totality/fact‑specific test |
| Application to facts: Was a shooting inside this bar foreseeable? | Plaintiffs relied on neighborhood crime, some police run reports, and testimony suggesting weapons were common | Bar showed no prior shootings at the bar, no known history of patrons with guns, and generally safe reputation | Held: On these facts, a shooting inside this neighborhood bar was not foreseeable as a matter of law; summary judgment for the Bar affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (articulated a three‑part duty balancing test including foreseeability)
- L.W. v. W. Golf Ass’n, 712 N.E.2d 983 (Ind. 1999) (adopted totality‑of‑circumstances test in analyzing landowner duty for third‑party criminal acts)
- Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (same; factors include prior similar incidents and location conditions)
- Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sharp, 790 N.E.2d 462 (Ind. 2003) (explained that established duties need not be redefined and confirmed proprietors’ duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal attacks)
- Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (clarified that foreseeability is an element of the proprietor’s duty and courts decide how to evaluate it)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (held that foreseeability as part of duty is for the court and recommended totality test guidance for that determination)
- Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (distinguished foreseeability for duty from foreseeability for proximate cause; duty‑stage inquiry is broader and less fact‑specific)
- Estate of Heck ex rel. Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2003) (addressed foreseeability under Webb but was disapproved here insofar as it conflated duty‑stage foreseeability with proximate‑cause analysis)