Pierson ex rel. Pierson v. Service America Corp.
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 215
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Twelve-year-old Tierra Pierson was killed and January Canada injured when Trenton Gaff — who had been drinking at pre-game tailgate(s), during a Colts game at Lucas Oil Stadium, and post-game — drove intoxicated and caused the collision; Gaff’s BAC later tested ~0.20.
- Plaintiffs sued Centerplate (stadium alcohol vendor) under Indiana’s Dram Shop provisions, alleging Centerplate negligently allowed sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron (Gaff); identity of the actual server(s) inside the stadium was not established in discovery.
- Centerplate moved for summary judgment; trial court granted summary judgment finding no designated evidence that any Centerplate employee or designee served Gaff while visibly intoxicated and that Centerplate’s alcohol was not a proximate cause.
- On appeal, plaintiffs argued reasonable inferences from the timeline, BAC, and expert opinion could show Gaff was visibly intoxicated when served inside the stadium and that Centerplate — as the sole in-stadium alcohol provider acting through agents/volunteers — can be liable for their agents’ acts.
- Appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo, noting duty/proximate-cause questions under the Dram Shop Act are often fact issues for the jury and that summary judgment in negligence cases is disfavored.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Pierson’s dram shop/negligence claim | Evidence (timeline, BAC, expert extrapolation, Centerplate as sole in-stadium vendor) permits inference a Centerplate agent served Gaff while visibly intoxicated | No designated evidence identifies any Centerplate server who served Gaff or knew he was visibly intoxicated, so proximate cause is negated | Reversed: genuine factual dispute exists; summary judgment improvidently granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Rhodes v. Wright, 805 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 2004) (summary judgment is rarely appropriate in negligence cases)
- Kader v. State Dept. of Correction, 1 N.E.3d 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (trial court not to weigh credibility on summary judgment)
- Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnson, 712 N.E.2d 968 (Ind. 1999) (actual knowledge of intoxication may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)
- Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Everton, 655 N.E.2d 360 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (dram shop proximate-cause principles; foreseeability and jury question)
- Ward v. D & A Enters. of Clark Cnty., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 728 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (serving even one beer shortly before serious intoxication can create a question of fact)
- Vanderhoek v. Willy, 728 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (both commercial and gratuitous furnishers can create genuine issues of fact under Dram Shop Act)