155 N.E.3d 1197
Ind. Ct. App.2020Background
- On April 15, 2018 (Baisakhi), a physical altercation erupted at Gurdwara Shri Guru Hargobind Sahib Ji in Greenwood; Harjinder Singh was stabbed and sued the assailant Amardeep Singh and the Gurdwara corporation.
- Plaintiff alleged the Gurdwara breached a duty to business invitees by failing to control congregation members and provide adequate security.
- Designated evidence showed preexisting tensions: a disruptive election selection the prior weekend that required police, termination-of-membership letters sent to twelve individuals, and steps taken to avoid confrontation (not announcing the new committee, hiring off‑duty officers and private security for April 15).
- Video and witness evidence showed committee president Satnam shoving another person seconds before the wider brawl and individuals wielding weapons inside the prayer hall; security and multiple law‑enforcement officers were present that day.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Gurdwara, concluding no duty existed because violence at a place of worship was not the kind of harm foreseeable as a matter of law under Goodwin/Cavanaugh’s framework.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the Gurdwara had notice of present, specific circumstances that made imminent criminal harm reasonably likely and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Gurdwara owed Harjinder a duty to protect him from a third‑party attack (precluding summary judgment) | Harjinder: the Gurdwara had actual/constructive knowledge of present and specific circumstances (prior disturbances, termination letters, visible tension, guards on site, committee members instigating) making violence reasonably likely; it also assumed a duty by hiring security. | Gurdwara: no contemporaneous warning that a violent attack was impending; applying Goodwin/Cavanaugh’s, the broad class/type-of-harm test defeats a duty and would make landowners insurers; alternatively, it took reasonable precautions (off‑duty police, private security). | Court of Appeals: reversed summary judgment — on these facts a reasonable person could conclude the Gurdwara had notice of present and specific circumstances creating a probability of imminent harm, so duty was a triable issue; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (articulated the ‘broad type of plaintiff and harm’ foreseeability threshold for imposing a landowner’s duty to protect invitees)
- Cavanaugh’s Sports Bar & Eatery, Ltd. v. Porterfield, 140 N.E.3d 837 (Ind. 2020) (held no duty where no present, specific knowledge of imminent harm; refined application of Goodwin)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (explained that duty depends on whether defendant knew or had reason to know of present, specific circumstances indicating probable imminent harm)
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (discussed social‑policy considerations in duty analysis)