Robert Spierer v. Corey Rossman
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 14255
| 7th Cir. | 2015Background
- Lauren Spierer, a 20-year-old Indiana University student, disappeared after a night of heavy drinking; last seen leaving Rosenbaum’s apartment ~4:30 a.m. in 2011. No credible information explains what happened afterward.
- Plaintiffs (Lauren’s parents) sued classmates Rossman, Rosenbaum, and Beth for negligence (common law and negligence per se) and Dram Shop Act violations, alleging the defendants furnished alcohol and failed to care for an incapacitated Lauren.
- District court dismissed all claims against Beth and common-law negligence claims against Rossman and Rosenbaum at the pleading stage; other claims survived to discovery.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment before general discovery, arguing plaintiffs could only speculate about proximate causation and that disappearance alone is not a legally cognizable injury. Magistrate limited discovery to proximate-cause issues; summary judgment was granted for defendants.
- Plaintiffs appealed the discovery limitation, the grant of summary judgment, and dismissal of common-law negligence claims. Seventh Circuit affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discovery should have been extended before ruling on pre-discovery summary judgment | Spierer: motions premature; need broader discovery to oppose summary judgment | Defendants: Rule 56(b) permits early motion; plaintiffs did not identify specific discovery needed under Rule 56(d) | Court: No abuse of discretion; plaintiffs’ 56(d) showing was boilerplate and they admitted they did not need discovery to oppose the motions |
| Burden on moving party for pre-discovery summary judgment | Spierer: defendants had to produce evidence to meet burden of production before summary judgment | Defendants: Celotex allows movant to point to absence of factual support in record (pleadings) without producing additional evidence | Court: Celotex governs; movant met initial burden by showing plaintiffs lacked evidence of an injury and causation; burden shifted to plaintiffs |
| Whether plaintiffs proved a cognizable injury and proximate cause (Dram Shop / negligence per se) | Spierer: prior pleadings-stage treatment precluded defendants from relitigating presumption; pharmacologist affidavit showed intoxication and impairment | Defendants: disappearance is not an injury; plaintiffs speculated about third-party criminal acts breaking causation | Court: Plaintiffs failed to produce evidence of a verifiable injury or that defendants’ conduct, rather than intervening criminal acts, proximately caused injury; summary judgment proper |
| Whether defendants assumed a common-law duty of care by voluntarily assisting Lauren | Spierer: defendants voluntarily undertook assistance and therefore owed a duty | Defendants: Indiana law requires a special relationship or displacement of the primary duty; social peers do not create such duties | Court: No plausible duty alleged; Indiana precedent refuses to extend assumed-duty liability to ordinary social peers; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (movant need not produce evidentiary materials to shift burden on summary judgment)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (no genuine issue when record could not lead a rational trier to find for nonmoving party)
- Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (nonmoving party bearing the trial burden must designate specific facts showing a genuine issue)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (genuine factual disputes required for viewing facts in the nonmoving party’s favor)
- Davis v. G.N. Mortgage Corp., 396 F.3d 869 (7th Cir. standard for abuse-of-discretion review of discovery rulings)
- Ball v. Kotter, 723 F.3d 813 (standard of review for summary judgment in Seventh Circuit)
- Chaib v. Indiana, 744 F.3d 974 (summary judgment standards)
- Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Beyrer, 722 F.3d 939 (burden-shifting at summary judgment)
- Lather v. Berg, 519 N.E.2d 755 (Indiana refusal to impose liability where one does not act in lieu of another’s legal duty)
- Hawn v. Padgett, 598 N.E.2d 630 (Indiana reluctance to impose duty to control third parties absent special relationship)
- Buchanan v. Vowell, 926 N.E.2d 515 (distinguishing facts where one encourages or supervises intoxicated person and assumes duty)
- Yost v. Wabash College, 3 N.E.3d 509 (assumption-of-duty principle under Indiana law)