Buddy & Pal's III, Inc. v. Stephen Shearer
91 N.E.3d 1000
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Buddy & Pal’s operated a bar where Shearer was hit by a vehicle driven by Coyle after leaving the bar in the early morning hours.
- Officer Janson observed signs of alcohol impairment in Coyle and arrested him for operating while intoxicated and hit-and-run.
- Shearer filed a negligence action against Buddy & Pal’s and Coyle; Coyle settled with Shearer; trial proceeded by jury in November 2016.
- Trial evidence included Buddy & Pal’s employee policy on responsible alcohol service and training, and Coyle’s deposition statements regarding drinking at the bar.
- The jury apportioned fault: Shearer 17%, Buddy & Pal’s 21%, Coyle 62%, with total damages of $155,000 and damages against Buddy & Pal’s of $32,550.
- Buddy & Pal’s moved for judgment on the evidence and to correct error; the trial court denied these motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly denied judgment on the evidence | Shearer shows sufficient evidence of negligence and conspiracy to show Buddy & Pal’s knew or should have known of intoxication. | No substantial evidence that Buddy & Pal’s knew Coyle was visibly intoxicated when served or that service caused Shearer’s injuries. | Affirmed; there was substantial evidence supporting the claim and no complete failure of proof. |
| Whether the court properly denied the motion to correct error on damages | Damages supported by evidence of pain and injury, including somatic symptom disorder and physical injuries. | Jury verdict should be scrutinized since damages were not broken out by injury type and some damages were linked to mental health claims. | Affirmed; the jury’s total damages supported the claims and the lack of breakdown did not warrant correction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Belork v. Latimer, 54 N.E.3d 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (judgment on the evidence requires substantial evidence)
- Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for correcting error)
- Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (actual knowledge may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Foster, 519 N.E.2d 1224 (Ind. 1988) (circumstantial evidence used to prove knowledge of intoxication)
- Marlow v. Better Bars, Inc., 45 N.E.3d 1266 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (visible signs of impairment may support intoxication knowledge)
- Vanderhoek v. Willy, 728 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (manufacturing and serving context for intoxication evidence)
- Booker, Inc. v. Morrill, 639 N.E.2d 358 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (circumstantial evidence standard in intoxication cases)