123 N.E.3d 170
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- At 3:00 a.m. after closing, an exchange in Cavanaugh’s parking lot escalated into a physical altercation in which patron Eric Porterfield suffered a serious eye injury.
- Porterfield (plaintiff) filed a negligence action alleging Cavanaugh’s (defendant) failed to take reasonable care to protect patrons from criminal acts on its premises.
- Cavanaugh’s moved for summary judgment arguing it owed no duty as a matter of law to protect against after-hours criminal assaults in its parking lot.
- Designated evidence included Porterfield’s deposition and evidence of five prior police runs to Cavanaugh’s within the prior 11 months reporting fights outside the bar shortly after closing.
- The trial court denied summary judgment, stating it did not rely on the police reports; Cavanaugh’s appealed the denial interlocutorily.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cavanaugh’s owed a duty to protect Porterfield from an after-hours assault in its parking lot | A proprietor owes invitees reasonable care to protect them from foreseeable criminal acts, including post-closing parking-lot fights; prior incidents made such violence foreseeable | No duty as a matter of law: post-closing, outside-the-building assaults (like instantaneous fistfights) are unforeseeable and thus outside proprietor’s duty | Duty question is for the court; here summary judgment was improper because a genuine factual dispute exists about foreseeability given prior similar incidents — duty cannot be resolved as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (discusses duty and when a criminal act by a patron is unforeseeable as a matter of law)
- Paragon Family Rest. 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) (parking-lot altercation; foreseeability and notice to proprietor are pivotal in duty analysis)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)