Rachel Neal v. IAB Financial Bank, f/k/a Grabill Bank
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 44
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 27, 2012, Gabriel Biddle pulled into IAB Financial Bank’s lot with a flat tire; bank employees helped change the tire and Biddle left the property.
- Bank employees later thought Biddle appeared "somewhat unaware" and "kind of staggered," and the assistant manager called 911 to report a possible drunk driver after Biddle left.
- Biddle subsequently caused a traffic accident that injured Rachel Neal, who sued the Bank alleging its employees negligently assisted an intoxicated driver and thus assumed a duty to protect third parties.
- The Bank moved for summary judgment; the trial court held, and the Court of Appeals reviewed, whether the Bank owed a duty to Neal as a matter of law.
- The court analyzed duty under the Webb v. Jarvis three-factor balancing test (relationship, foreseeability, public policy), as refined by later cases, and focused on whether a gratuitous undertaking created a special relationship or duty.
- The court granted summary judgment for the Bank, holding no duty existed because no special relationship or deliberate undertaking to protect third parties was shown, harm was not sufficiently foreseeable, and public policy disfavors imposing such a duty on Good Samaritans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Bank owed a duty to third parties injured by Biddle after employees helped change his tire | Neal: Bank gratuitously assumed a duty by assisting a visibly intoxicated Biddle, which made it liable for ensuing harm | Bank: No deliberate, specific undertaking to protect motorists; employees merely aided a stranded motorist and did not control or furnish alcohol | Court: No duty. No special relationship or deliberate undertaking; harm not generally foreseeable; public policy disfavors imposing such a duty on Good Samaritans |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (standard for duty analysis and foreseeability framework)
- Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (limits on Webb framework in landowner-invitee cases)
- Yost v. Wabash College, 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (gratuitous undertaking requires affirmative, deliberate conduct and identification of specific services undertaken)
- Hawn v. Padgett, 598 N.E.2d 630 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (no duty to control a third person absent a special relationship)
- Buchanan ex rel. Buchanan v. Vowell, 926 N.E.2d 515 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (gratuitous assistance that facilitates intoxicated driving can create a duty)
- Spierer v. Rossman, 798 F.3d 502 (7th Cir. 2015) (discussing Indiana precedent on assumed duties in the intoxicated-driver context)
- Sword v. NKC Hospitals, Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) (respondeat superior liability for employee acts)