Crystal Jones v. Jerry Wilson d/b/a Hoosier Pro Wrestling
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 346
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Crystal Jones attended a wrestling event held in a building (Family Arts building) at the Bartholomew County Fairgrounds; defendant Jerry Wilson (d/b/a Hoosier Pro Wrestling) had rented the building for the event.
- At ~11:00 p.m., while walking alone through a grassy parking area to her car (the lot lights allegedly not illuminated), Jones was assaulted by an unknown assailant and injured.
- Jones sued Wilson (and the Fair, which later settled) for negligence, alleging lack of exterior lighting and security contributed to the attack.
- Wilson moved for summary judgment, arguing he had no duty to protect Jones from unforeseeable criminal acts in the parking area and the rental agreement did not require him to maintain parking lighting or security.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Wilson; Jones appealed, contesting whether Wilson owed a duty to protect her from third‑party criminal acts in the parking lot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wilson owed a duty to protect an invitee (Jones) from a third‑party criminal attack in the parking area | Jones: the lack of lighting was a condition of the land that made the attack a premises‑condition claim, so duty is established under landowner‑invitee rules and foreseeability goes to proximate cause | Wilson: he rented only the building, had no obligation for parking lights/security under the agreement, and the criminal attack was not foreseeable, so no duty existed | Court assumed without deciding the spatial scope of any duty but held this was not a pure ‘condition of the land’ case; applying Goodwin/Rogers foreseeability test, the attack was not of a kind normally to be expected, so Wilson owed no duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (clarifies that foreseeability is a threshold duty inquiry for harms from activities on premises and sets standard for when to impose a duty)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (distinguishes injuries from land conditions versus injuries from third‑party activities and explains foreseeability’s role in duty analysis)
- Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (articulates difference between foreseeability for duty and foreseeability for proximate cause)