Rogers v. Martin, 48 N.E.3d 318

Party facts: Martin lived with Brothers; Brothers and Martin jointly hosted a May 8, 2010 party at Martin’s home where a keg purchased with a debit card tied to Martin’s account was provided and guests self-served beer.
Incident: Late-night fight between Brothers, Jerry Chambers, and Paul Michalik left Michalik unconscious in the basement; Brothers and Chambers checked a pulse and carried Michalik upstairs; Michalik was later found dead in Martin’s yard.
Procedural posture: Appellants (personal representative of Michalik and trustee of Chambers’ bankruptcy estate) sued Martin and Brothers alleging (1) Dram Shop Act liability for furnishing alcohol to Brothers and (2) negligent failure to render aid; the trial court granted Martin summary judgment; Appellants appealed.
Dispositive motions: Martin moved for summary judgment only on whether she furnished alcohol to Brothers and on the failure-to-render-aid claim.
Evidentiary dispute: Relevant facts in the record include that Martin’s debit card paid for the keg and that Martin testified she served a pitcher of beer to poker players in the basement (possibly including Brothers), while Brothers testified he poured his own beer from the keg.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Martin ‘furnished’ alcohol to Brothers under Indiana Dram Shop law	Martin purchased the keg (via her debit card) and served beer (a pitcher) to basement players, so genuine issue exists whether she furnished a drink to Brothers	Brothers procured/poured his own beer from the shared keg; Martin was not the active means of furnishing alcohol	Reversed: fact issue exists whether Martin furnished alcohol; summary judgment improper
Whether Martin owed and breached a duty to render aid to Michalik	As host, Martin had a duty to exercise reasonable care toward a social guest and the circumstances (fight + unconscious guest) made harm foreseeable; she may have failed to render reasonable aid	No duty as a social host to render aid or, alternatively, no breach because Brothers and Chambers were attending Michalik when Martin left	Reversed: duty exists as a matter of law; breach is a factual question for jury

Rauck v. Hawn, 564 N.E.2d 334 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (statutory Dram Shop framework limits common-law alcohol-liability).
Lather v. Berg, 519 N.E.2d 755 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988) (no furnishing where co-acquirers exercised joint control over liquor).
Pierson v. Serv. Am. Corp., 9 N.E.3d 712 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (Dram Shop reflects legislative judgment imposing liability for knowingly serving visibly intoxicated persons).
Ashlock v. Norris, 475 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (legislative intent can extend liability to social suppliers who give an intoxicated person ‘one more drink’).
Estate of Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2003) (elements of negligence and duty as question of law).
Baker v. Fenneman & Brown Props., LLC, 793 N.E.2d 1203 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (duty to render reasonable aid; Restatement §314A guidance).
Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011) (landowner/host owes invitee/social guest reasonable care on premises).
Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (three-part balancing test for imposing duty: relationship, foreseeability, public policy).