Source: http://www.pavlacklawfirm.com/blog/further-considering-when-a-proprietor-owes-a-duty-to-a-patron-to-protect-him-from-the-criminal-acts-of-another
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:55:37+00:00

Document:
Although the Court of Appeals was largely quiet this week—even a quiet week still has sixteen decisions—last week produced several important rulings that merit discussion. The three most notable were each civil tort cases. Although this post will only focus on Certa v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations Inc., we will briefly discuss two other cases from this week.
The case then progressed to the trial court and the doctor sought summary judgment, submitting an affidavit of an expert concluding that the doctor’s “care . . . was within the applicable standard of care notwithstanding his extremely poor recordkeeping[.]” The plaintiff responded only by relying on the panel’s conclusion. In many cases, that may have been enough, but, as the Indiana Court of Appeals wrote, “This is an extremely unusual case.” With the panel only having found that the record keeping was insufficient but making no finding as to the negligence resulting in the plaintiff’s injury, there was no contrary evidence on that point and summary judgment was affirmed.
I concur, but write separately to emphasize the injustice caused by Dr. Kleinman’s failure to maintain adequate and accurate medical records, which prevented the Medical Review Panel from rendering an opinion on the merits of Henderson’s medical malpractice claim. As our Supreme Court has acknowledged, “the ‘[m]aintenance of health records by providers’ is . . . closely entwined with health care and . . . records in general are . . . important to a medical review panel’s assessment of whether the appropriate standard of care was met.” It should follow, then, that a health care provider’s failure to maintain documentation of a patient’s treatment sufficient to enable a Medical Review Panel to form an opinion on alleged medical malpractice would support a claim against the provider. I urge our Legislature to amend the Act to provide that health care providers have an affirmative duty to maintain adequate and accurate medical records and that a violation of that duty could support a prima facie medical malpractice claim.
A health care provider’s failure to maintain adequate and accurate medical records is the functional equivalent of spoliation of evidence. While our courts do not recognize an independent tort claim for first party spoliation of evidence, “[i]n Indiana, the exclusive possession of facts or evidence by a party, coupled with the suppression of the facts or evidence by that party, may result in an inference that the production of the evidence would be against the interest of the party which suppresses it.” Such an inference could defeat a summary judgment motion.
Here, Dr. Kleinman had exclusive control over the creation of Henderson’s medical records, which evidence was a necessary predicate for her medical malpractice claim. The inadequacy of those records is akin to the suppression of evidence and supports an inference that adequate medical records would have been against Dr. Kleinman's interest. As the majority observes, it would be reasonable to assert that a health care provider has an affirmative duty to maintain adequate and accurate records. Such a duty is wholly meaningless without a consequence for a failure to comply. Here, the Medical Review Panel’s inability to evaluate Henderson’s malpractice claim due to a “lack of documentation” should be sufficient to withstand Dr. Kleinman’s summary judgment motion. Nonetheless, we must strictly construe the Act, and because Henderson did not designate any evidence to show that Dr. Kleinman’s conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, I am compelled to agree with the majority that summary judgment for Dr. Kleinman is required.
Our next case, D.H. v. Whipple, stems from particularly heinous circumstances. There, a minor was molested by her maternal grandmother’s husband and a claim was brought against the grandmother for negligent supervision and an assumed duty to protect the child. I’ll note that it may seem somewhat odd to sue a family member, but this is often necessary to reach homeowner’s insurance that can provide coverage.
In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, a trial court may only consider material deemed appropriate by Indiana Trial Rule 56(E). . . .
The affidavit requirements of Trial Rule 56(E) are mandatory and a court considering a summary judgment motion should disregard inadmissible information contained in supporting or opposing affidavits.The party offering the affidavit into evidence bears the burden of establishing its admissibility.
At the summary judgment hearing, Mary alleged that Detective Sanderson’s speculations were based solely on inadmissible hearsay and violated the Indiana Dead Man’s Statute. . . .
Here, Mary argues that Detective Sanderson does not have personal knowledge that “prior to December 20, 2009,” Robert informed Mary that he molested a child. In context, immediately preceding that statement, Detective Sanderson stated that “Robert E. Whipple informed me that he had told his wife Mary Whipple that he had molested a girl in the past.” Thus, the issue becomes only whether Robert told Mary that information prior to December 20, 2009—the date of the first molestation underlying Appellants’ cause of action.
Here, Detective Sanderson’s “impression” is both rationally based on his perception and helpful to a clear understanding of his testimony. Indeed, even absent an express statement, there are countless context clues in the course of a conversation from which the recipient of information can determine, or at least opine, the order in which events occurred. Mary argues, however, that this “impression” is not rational considering Mary’s and Robert’s subsequent testimony—referring to the fact that both Mary and Robert denied having any such conversation. But this is no matter. As noted above, a statement is rational if a reasonable person could form the opinion from the perceived facts and we need not look to other testimony to determine whether the opinion is consistent. Therefore, . . . Detective Sanderson’s “impression” would [ ] be admissible evidence for the trial court’s evaluation on summary judgment.
That takes us to our primary focus for today, Certa v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations, Inc. This case and its analysis should remind you of a case we discussed two months ago that, as luck would have it, was also against Steak ‘n Shake: Hamilton v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations Inc. In Hamilton, the question was whether Steak ‘n Shake could be held liable for not taking actions to protect a patron after a prolonged period of threats and escalating violence from another patron resulted in a gunshot to the face of a victim. The Court of Appeals of Indiana held that it could be as it did owe a duty in that circumstance.
When Certa exited the restaurant, he saw one of the women from the other group punching his friend. He “ran back into the restaurant and told the employees to call the police.” When he again walked outside, he saw his other friend was now in an altercation. He ran behind the vehicle occupied by the other persons to try and get the plate number. At that time, the driver threw the car in reverse and backed over him.
Before the court was the question of whether Steak ‘n Shake owed a duty to Certa to protect him from the criminal actions over the other persons. Like Hamilton, the starting point for the court was analysis of the Indiana Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc. and Rogers v. Martin. Surprisingly, the Certacourt made no mention of Hamilton. Perhaps the panel was unaware of the decision or, more likely, the panel did not want to base its ruling upon a case in which transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court was being sought. (Two days after the Certawas handed down, the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer in Hamilton).
For example, in Goodwin, the court acknowledged that bar owners do not “routinely contemplate that one bar patron might suddenly shoot another.” Use of the word “suddenly” indicates that this was an unexpected occurrence relative to the landowner/bar owner. Likewise, in Rogers, the court called the fight an “unpredictable situation” and stated that hosts of parties do not “routinely physically fight guests whom they have invited.” Again, the court’s language reflects the unanticipated nature of the fight vis-à-vis the landowner/homeowner. Finally, with regard to the second issue of duty in Rogers, the court decided that the landowner/homeowner’s knowledge that the guest had been injured gave rise to a duty to protect the guest from exacerbation of the injury occurring in her home. Thus, what the landowner knew or had reason to know is a pivotal consideration in determining foreseeability which Steak ‘n Shake disregards in its analysis.
Accordingly, as did our supreme court in Goodwin and Rogers, we apply the broad type of plaintiff and the broad type of harm analysis and determine the foreseeability of the events with consideration of what Steak ‘n Shake knew or had reason to know. The broad type of plaintiff is a restaurant patron, and the broad type of harm is injury caused by a third party. In determining the foreseeability, we are mindful that Steak ‘n Shake did not have to know the precise harm that its customer would suffer, only that there was some probability or likelihood of harm that was serious enough to induce a reasonable person to take precautions to avoid it. Steak ‘n Shake knew that a heated encounter that began outside the restaurant between two groups of intoxicated people spilled into the restaurant. The Steak 'n Shake server was told by her niece that she feared a fight would ensue, and the groups exchanged dirty looks and finger pointing while inside the restaurant. In addition, the Steak ‘n Shake server specifically informed her manager that the two groups might be trouble. Further, Certa indicated to the Steak ‘n Shake server that he would retaliate if Gillham engaged him in the parking lot. Given these circumstances, we conclude that Steak ‘n Shake’s knowledge of the events on its premises in this case gave rise to a duty to take reasonable steps to provide for Certa’s safety as a patron of its establishment.
Like Hamilton, the Certa panel focused on the unexpected and sudden occurrences in Goodwin and Rogers to distinguish them from a series of escalating events. With transfer denied in Hamilton, it appears likely that the same result will be reached in Certa, thereby establishing the two cases as interpretations of Goodwin and Rogers binding on all lower courts.
Certa v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations Inc., ---N.E.3d---, No. 79A05-1708-CT-1873, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 189 (Ind. Ct. App. May 29, 2018) (Barteau, S.J.), pet. for trans. pending.
Henderson v. Kleinman, ---N.E.3d--- No. 84A01-1710-CT-2566, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 192 (Ind. Ct. App. May 30, 2018) (Mathias, J.; Najam, J., concurring).
D.H. v. Whipple, ---N.E.3d---, No. 48A05-1706-CT-1345, 2018 Ind. App. LEXIS 190 (Ind. Ct. App. May 29, 2018) (Robb, J.), reh'g denied.
Satterfield v. State, 33 N.E.3d 344, 352 (Ind. 2015) (Rush, C.J.).
Hamilton v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations Inc., 92 N.E.3d 1166 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (Altice, J.), trans. denied.
Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (Ind. 2016) (Rucker, J.).
Rogers v. Martin, 63 N.E.3d 316 (Ind. 2016) (Rush, C.J.).
Indiana Medical Malpractice Act, codified at Ind. Code art. 34–18.
Colin E. Flora, When Does a Proprietor Owe a Duty to Stop One Patron from Shooting Another? Indiana Court of Appeals Weighs In, Hoosier Litig. Blog(April 6, 2018).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 art. 34