because “in the broadest sense, all crimes anywhere
are ‘foreseeable’ . . . [and] to impose a blanket duty
on proprietors to afford protection to their patrons
. . . would abandon the notion of liability based on
negligence and enter the realm of strict liability in tort,
which ‘assumes no negligence of the actor, but chooses
to impose liability anyway.’” Id. (citation omitted).
Other courts have started citing and applying Goodwin.
In Polet v. ESG Sec., Inc., 66 N.E.3d 972 (Ind. Ct. App.
2016), the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary
judgment in favor of a security company, finding it
did not owe a legal duty to patrons injured in a stage
collapse. The Court characterized the plaintiff as a
patron of an outdoor concert and the type of harm as the
likelihood of a stage collapse due to high wind. Based
on this, the Court found the accident was not reasonably
foreseeable to the security company as a matter of law.
In Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016), the
Indiana Supreme Court held, in relevant part, that
a host did not owe a legal duty to protect a guest
from being harmed during a fight between others
which occurred on the premises. The Court found
that, although house parties “often set the stage
for raucous behavior,” such fights are not routine
and resultant injuries to by-standing guests are not
reasonably foreseeable. Summary judgment was
not appropriate for other reasons, but the Court’s
analysis on this issue was consistent with Goodwin.
Most recently, in Neal v. IAB Financial Bank, ---
N.E.3d ---- 2017 WL 444034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017),
the Indiana Court of Appeals found a bank did not
owe a duty to a motorist subsequently injured by an
intoxicated driver who had changed a flat tire at that
bank and with the help of the bank’s employees. The
Court found the bank could not reasonably foresee
that an intoxicated driver would stop at its building
to seek aid or that such a driver would later cause
an accident in which another would be injured.
Motions for summary judgment have myriad other
applications. For example, they can narrow the
issues in dispute or be used as leverage for settlement.
But each case is different. Not all are factually or
legally situated for summary dispositions under
these, or other, precedents. But, for those which
are, this approach can yield substantial savings in
litigation costs and result in more prompt resolutions.
Pass the Torch for Women
Foundation
RBE attorney Kathleen Hart recently
hosted a poker tutorial event for the Pass
the Torch for Women Foundation’s 500
Circle members. The event took place in the
RBE building where Kathleen spoke to the
attendees on negotiating skills and the rules
of poker along with a sampling of its games.
Pass the Torch for Women Foundation
provides access for female college
students to the world’s largest women’s
mentoring program. To learn more about
the foundation you can visit their website,
http://passthetorchforwomen.org/.
RBELAW.com
15