DaShawn Powell v. Kevin Stuber d/b/a Bleachers Pub
89 N.E.3d 430
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Around 2:30 a.m. after leaving Bleachers Pub, Powell was knocked down in the bar’s parking lot, robbed of keys and wallet, and later chased the assailants; while grabbing a fleeing vehicle he was run over and seriously injured.
- Powell did not notify Bleachers staff of the initial assault and remained in his vehicle before pursuing the assailants.
- Powell sued Bleachers (among others) for negligence; other defendants were dismissed and Powell ultimately proceeded only against Bleachers.
- After the Indiana Supreme Court decided Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc., Bleachers moved to reopen the dispositive-motion deadline; the trial court granted the extension and Bleachers then moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding (under Goodwin) that as a matter of law Bleachers did not owe a duty to protect an invitee from the kind of criminal harm that occurred when Powell pursued his assailants.
- Powell appealed both the deadline extension and the summary-judgment ruling; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trial court erred by reopening dispositive-motion deadline | Reopening over a year after original deadline was improper and prejudiced Powell | Goodwin changed controlling law; reopening for cause under Trial Rule 56(I) was appropriate | Reopening was within trial court discretion and not prejudicial; no error |
| Whether Bleachers owed a duty to protect Powell from the criminal attack and resulting injuries | Powell argued facts show foreseeability and breach; his actions (chasing assailants) do not eliminate duty | Under Goodwin, foreseeability for duty is a legal question; an unprovoked criminal attack (and extension by victim’s pursuit) is not foreseeable as a matter of law | No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment for Bleachers affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (clarifies foreseeability analysis for duty in premises-liability cases involving criminal acts)
- Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (distinguishes foreseeability analysis for duty from proximate cause)
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (landowners owe invitees reasonable precautions against foreseeable criminal attacks)
- Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012) (summary-judgment burden-shifting framework)