F. John Rogers, as Personal Representative of Paul Michalik, and R. David Boyer, Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Jerry Lee Chambers v. Angela Martin and Brian Paul Brothers, 63 N.E.3d 316

Hosts Angela Martin and Brian Brothers co-hosted a large house party where a keg was provided and guests served themselves.
Brothers ordered and paid for the keg using a shared household debit account; Martin and Brothers exercised joint control/possession over the beer.
A late-night fistfight occurred in the basement involving Brothers, Jerry Chambers, and Paul Michalik; Michalik was later found unconscious and died shortly after.
Martin saw Michalik lying listless, checked that he was breathing, did not call 911, and returned to bed; Chambers and Brothers carried Michalik upstairs and later he was found dead outside.
Michalik’s estate and Chambers’s bankruptcy trustee sued Martin (and Brothers) for negligence (premises liability / failure to render aid) and for violating Indiana’s Dram Shop Act by furnishing alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.
Trial court granted Martin summary judgment on both claims; Court of Appeals reversed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and issued the decision reviewed here.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether homeowner owed a duty to protect or render aid to a social guest after discovering him injured on the premises	Martin had a duty as landowner/social host to render aid to an injured guest and breached it by failing to seek help	No separate ‘‘render aid’’ duty; only the ordinary landowner–invitee duty applies and must be limited by foreseeability; Martin was not required to protect against an unforeseeable brawl	Duty: landowner–invitee duty governs. No duty to prevent an unforeseeable fistfight, but duty existed to protect against foreseeable exacerbation of an on-premises injury; factual dispute on breach/proximate cause — summary judgment improper on negligence claim
Whether Martin "furnished" alcohol to Brothers under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act	Pls: Martin furnished beer (e.g., placing pitcher on poker table) to Brothers and is liable for injuries caused by his intoxication	Martin and Brothers jointly possessed the keg/beer; furnishing requires transfer of possession, so she could not have furnished what he already possessed	"Furnish" requires transfer of possession; because Martin and Brothers jointly possessed the alcohol, Martin could not have furnished it — summary judgment proper on Dram Shop claim

Burrell v. Meads, 569 N.E.2d 637 (Ind. 1991) (establishes social guests are invitees and frames landowner–invitee duty)
Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (three-factor duty-balancing test used in prior duty analyses)
Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (foreseeability is the critical inquiry before extending landowner duty to third-party criminal acts)
Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (clarifies foreseeability in duty analysis is a court’s threshold determination)
Lather v. Berg, 519 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (joint possession of alcohol precludes a finding that one host "furnished" it to the other)
Rauck v. Hawn, 564 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (contrasting example where transfer/possession supported a furnishing claim)