118 N.E.3d 38
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- On a January night in 2013, Bailey, intoxicated and aggressive, was involved in a fight inside Buddy & Pals and was ejected via the back door after bouncers subdued him.
- Bailey returned to the back door, was punched in the eye and the door was slammed; bouncers warned front-door staff Bailey might come around the building.
- Shortly thereafter, Falaschetti exited the front door and Bailey, apparently mistaking him for the man who had shoved him, punched Falaschetti, causing a broken jaw and other injuries.
- Falaschetti sued Buddy & Pals and Bailey; this interlocutory appeal concerns the trial court’s denial of Buddy & Pals’ motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim.
- Buddy & Pals argued it owed no duty to protect Falaschetti from Bailey’s criminal act; the trial court denied summary judgment and the denial was certified for interlocutory appeal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding a genuine issue of fact on foreseeability and duty given the bouncers’ knowledge of Bailey’s violent, intoxicated behavior and their warning to front-door staff.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proprietor owed duty to protect patron from another patron’s criminal act | Falaschetti: proprietor had duty to protect invitees from foreseeable criminal acts by patrons | Buddy & Pals: no duty as a matter of law because the assault was a sudden, mistaken identity criminal act | Held: Duty exists for questions of foreseeability here; summary judgment denied because facts create a genuine issue on foreseeability and duty |
| Whether a sudden violent act (like assault) is foreseeable as matter of law | Foreseeable where proprietor knew of escalating agitation and ejection of an intoxicated, violent patron | Not foreseeable as matter of law—defendant relied on cases finding shootings not foreseeable | Held: Distinguishes sudden shootings; a violent ejected patron who returned after being warned made harm reasonably foreseeable |
| Whether mistaken identity of the assailant defeats foreseeability | Mistaken identity irrelevant—duty looks to type of harm to invitees, not whether assailant targeted that specific plaintiff | Mistaken identity shows lack of foreseeability of harm to this particular plaintiff | Held: Mistaken identity does not negate foreseeability of the type of harm (assault on patrons) |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Falaschetti: designated evidence shows facts (intoxication, ejection, warnings) creating a factual dispute for jury on duty/breach | Buddy & Pals: entitled to judgment as matter of law—no duty established | Held: Summary judgment improper; factual issues remain for trier of fact |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (discusses foreseeability and holds a sudden shooting inside a bar was not foreseeable as matter of law)
- Paragon Family Restaurant v. Bartolini, 799 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. 2003) (proprietors owe invitees reasonable care to protect from other patrons, including foreseeable criminal acts)
- Certa v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations Inc., 102 N.E.3d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (reversed summary judgment where staff observed escalating agitation and failed to take steps to prevent further violence)