Appellants allege as ticket holders, they were encouraged to come on the premises. By introducing fifty-five police reports from 1992 to 1996, appellant tried to establish that numerous similar prior fights had occurred at Riverport to put them and BMW on notice. Of the fifty-two assaults, only one involved a glass bottle, and it occurred in the parking lot. These assaults are not sufficiently similar in nature to the incident in this case or numerous to put Riverport or BMW on notice. Appellants also contend the trial court erred in granting summary judgment and finding no duty existed, because appellants were third-party beneficiaries of the contract between BMW and Riverport.
Appellants cite no case law that supports their contentions.
In Wood, the family of a mall tenant's employee sued the owner and manager of the mall for wrongful death, resulting from the abduction of an employee from the mall's parking lot and her murder. The court held, at best, the employee was intended to be an incidental beneficiary and therefore had no enforceable right. In this case, appellants failed to elicit any evidence or point to specific language in the contract to show BMW or Riverport intended to confer a direct benefit on them. In their second point on appeal, appellants allege the trial court erred in denying their motion for leave to file a third amendment to the petition by interlineation, alleging the pat-down searches were conducted in a negligent manner, failing to discover the existence of a bottle on the person of assailant who struck Mr. Hudson. Trial courts have broad discretion in granting leave to amend and only clearly erroneous decisions can be reversed.