Crone, J.
Case Summary
Shortly after he was ejected via the back door of Buddy & Pals sports bar for fighting, William Frank Bailey, Jr., punched Christopher Falaschetti outside the front entrance. Falaschetti filed a personal injury action against Buddy & Pals III, Inc., Buddy & Pals II, Inc., Buddy & Pals Inc., owner Timothy Heidbreder (collectively “Buddy & Pals”), and Bailey. [Footnote omitted.] In this interlocutory appeal, Buddy & Pals challenges the denial of its motion for summary judgment on Falaschetti’s negligence claim. Finding that Buddy & Pals failed to establish as a matter of law that it did not owe Falaschetti a duty to protect him from Bailey’s criminal act, we affirm the denial of summary judgment.
….
“[F]or purposes of determining whether an act is foreseeable in the context of duty we assess ‘whether there is some probability or likelihood of harm that is serious enough to induce a reasonable person to take precautions to avoid it.’” Goodwin, 62 N.E.3d at 392 (quoting Satterfield v. Breeding Insulation Co., 266 S.W.3d 347, 367 (Tenn. 2008)). This involves a “more general analysis of the broad type of plaintiff and harm involved, without regard to the facts of the actual occurrence.” Id. at 393 (quoting Goldsberry v. Grubbs, 672 N.E.2d 475, 479 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied (1999)).
Buddy & Pals relies on Goodwin as support for finding no duty to protect the plaintiff against the harm suffered. In Goodwin, one bar patron thought he overheard another patron making a derogatory remark about his wife. 62 N.E.3d at 385. In his anger, he pulled out a handgun and fired at the other patron, striking him and his two companions. Id. Reasoning that bar owners do not “routinely contemplate that one bar patron might suddenly shoot another[,]” our supreme court held “that a shooting inside a neighborhood bar is not foreseeable as a matter of law.” Id. at 393-94. Goodwin is similar to the present case in some respects. Both cases involve the same broad type of plaintiff, a bar patron. To the extent that Buddy & Pals suggests that Falaschetti falls into the category of “a complete stranger” to the assailant, we find this too narrow an application. Appellants’ Br. at 13. Both Goodwin and the present case involve harm related to an activity on the land, a criminal attack. Nevertheless, in analyzing foreseeability, i.e., the probability or likelihood of the criminal attack, we must look at the nature of the attack. Goodwin involved one patron suddenly shooting other patrons inside the bar. In contrast, here, a pugnacious patron ejected for fighting punched another patron exiting the bar by the other door. We believe this is the type of “rowdy behavior … that bar owners routinely contemplate.” Goodwin, 62 N.E.3d at 394. The fact that Buddy & Pals had several bouncers on duty inside the bar and an off-duty officer patrolling the parking lot underscores the foreseeability of these types of occurrences.
We find this case more akin to the Steak ‘n Shake cases, where employees observed escalating agitation among patrons, had reason to anticipate that a physical altercation might ensue, and therefore had a duty to take reasonable steps to protect the patrons. See Certa, 102 N.E.3d at 337-38 (reversing summary judgment for restaurant on issue of duty where patrons informed restaurant employees of physical altercations in parking lot, restaurant did not take steps to avoid further violence, and tensions escalated to where one patron struck another patron with her vehicle); see also Hamilton v. Steak ‘n Shake Operations Inc., 92 N.E.3d 1166, 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (reversing summary judgment for restaurant on issue of duty where restaurant employees observed escalating tensions between two groups of patrons, did not intervene or contact security or police, and plaintiff was shot inside restaurant), trans. denied.
“[W]hat the landowner knew or had reason to know is a pivotal consideration in determining foreseeability[.]” Certa, 102 N.E.3d at 341. Here, Buddy & Pals, through its bouncers, knew that Bailey – a large, angry, and visibly inebriated patron – had vigorously resisted them as they attempted to defuse the tensions between him and the man who shoved him. [Footnote omitted.] The bouncers also knew that he had approached the back entrance again after being ejected, prompting one of the bouncers to punch him and slam the door. They also anticipated that he would go around the building to the front entrance, which precipitated Joe’s warning to the bouncers up front.
In sum, Buddy & Pals, through its bouncers, knew that Bailey was a loose cannon who was not taking his ejection well and was in a fighting mood. As such, Buddy & Pals had a duty to take precautions to protect its other patrons, including Falaschetti, from further violent attacks by Bailey on the bar’s premises. [Footnote omitted.] This is not to say that Buddy & Pals breached its duty to protect Falaschetti; that will be a determination for the trier of fact once presented with evidence of the detailed circumstances of this case. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Buddy & Pals failed to establish as a matter of law that it owed Falaschetti no duty to protect him from Bailey’s attack. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Buddy & Pals’ motion for summary judgment.
Affirmed.
Vaidik, C.J., and Mathias, J., concur