102 N.E.3d 336
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Early May 2013, Certa and friends (intoxicated) observed a verbal/physical altercation between Gillham’s group and a woman outside a Steak ’n Shake; Certa intervened and later entered the restaurant.
- Gillham and her group (also intoxicated) later entered; Gillham told her aunt (server Ladonna Musik) she feared a fight and Musik told management to watch the two tables.
- While both groups were seated separately, there were hostile looks, loud talking, pointing, and the server warned the manager about possible trouble.
- After Gillham’s group left, an altercation in the parking lot occurred; Gillham (from a car) struck Certa’s companion and when Certa stood behind the car Hulett put it in reverse and ran over Certa, injuring him.
- Certa sued Steak ’n Shake (premises liability/negligence) and others; trial court initially denied summary judgment but later granted Steak ’n Shake’s renewed motion; Certa appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Steak ’n Shake owed a duty to Certa as an invitee to protect him from third-party criminal acts occurring off/on the premises | Certa: Steak ’n Shake knew of an escalating dispute involving intoxicated patrons, was warned a fight might occur, and therefore had a duty to take reasonable precautions | Steak ’n Shake: The broad harm is a criminal attack by another patron in a restaurant parking lot, which is unforeseeable as a matter of law (no duty) | Court: Reversed summary judgment — a duty existed because the restaurant knew facts creating a likelihood of serious harm that could have prompted precautions |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Certa: Material factual disputes (what Steak ’n Shake knew and whether it acted reasonably) preclude summary judgment | Steak ’n Shake: No duty as a matter of law, so summary judgment proper | Court: Summary judgment improper; duty question survives for trial (breach and proximate cause remain for factfinder) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar and Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (sets framework that duty-foreseeability uses broad type of plaintiff and broad type of harm analysis)
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (applies Goodwin analysis; distinguishes unforeseeable violent acts from duties arising when host/landowner knows of a risk)
- Sheehan Const. Co., Inc. v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 938 N.E.2d 685 (Ind. 2010) (summary judgment standard reaffirmed)
- Pickering v. Caesars Riverboat Casino, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 385 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (classification of entrant status on land controls duty owed)