Buddy & Pal's III, Inc. v. Stephen Shearer
91 N.E.3d 1000 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana's Dram Shop Act, the actual knowledge required for civil liability that a person was visibly intoxicated at the time alcohol was furnished can be established through circumstantial evidence, including the person's behavior and condition shortly after leaving the establishment.
Facts:
- Steven Shearer went to Buddy & Pal’s bar on Saturday, January 16, 2010, at approximately 10:00 or 11:00 p.m.
- Richard Coyle arrived at Buddy & Pal’s bar around 10:00 or 10:30 p.m., testified he consumed "about two beers" there, and felt "fine" and "sober" upon leaving.
- Coyle left the bar shortly before 2:00 a.m., warmed up his truck for five to ten minutes, and then pulled his truck around the building to pick up his friend.
- As Coyle’s truck approached the entrance, moving at approximately three to five miles per hour, it struck Shearer, who was exiting the bar.
- Coyle continued driving his truck after striking Shearer.
- Schererville Police Officer James Janson, who was standing outside the bar, heard a commotion, was told a truck hit a pedestrian, and quickly pursued and stopped Coyle’s truck a short distance away in the parking lot.
- Officer Janson observed Coyle exhibiting strong signs of intoxication, including a very strong odor of alcohol, slurred speech, mumbling, spitting, red and bloodshot eyes, and irritated behavior, leading to Coyle's arrest for driving while intoxicated.
- Shearer was later diagnosed by Dr. Robert Hanlon with somatic symptom disorder, which the doctor testified was triggered by the stress of the accident, although Shearer personally believed his pain was purely physical.
Procedural Posture:
- Stephen Shearer filed a negligence action against Buddy & Pal’s III, Inc. and Richard Coyle in Lake Superior Court (trial court) in late October or early November 2011.
- Richard Coyle settled with Stephen Shearer in February 2015.
- A jury trial was held in Lake Superior Court in November 2016.
- The jury determined that Stephen Shearer was seventeen percent at fault, Buddy & Pal’s III, Inc. was twenty-one percent at fault, and Richard Coyle was sixty-two percent at fault, awarding total damages of $155,000, with $32,550 against Buddy & Pal’s III, Inc.
- On November 16, 2016, the trial court entered judgment consistent with the jury verdict.
- Buddy & Pal’s III, Inc. filed a motion for judgment on the evidence, which the trial court denied.
- Buddy & Pal’s III, Inc. filed a motion to correct error, which the trial court also denied.
- Buddy & Pal’s III, Inc. (Appellant-Defendant) appealed the trial court's denial of its motion for judgment on the evidence and motion to correct error to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, with Stephen Shearer as Appellee-Plaintiff.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in denying a bar's motions for judgment on the evidence and to correct error where the plaintiff relied on circumstantial evidence to prove actual knowledge of visible intoxication under the Dram Shop Act and sought damages for a somatic symptom disorder despite personally disclaiming that specific diagnosis?
Opinions:
Majority - Brown, J.
No, the trial court did not err in denying Buddy & Pal’s motions for judgment on the evidence and to correct error, because sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the jury's finding of Dram Shop liability and the award of damages related to the plaintiff's injuries, including the somatic symptom disorder. The court affirmed the trial court's denial, emphasizing that actual knowledge of a patron's visible intoxication, a requirement for Dram Shop liability under Indiana Code § 7.1-5-10-15.5, can be inferred from indirect or circumstantial evidence. This includes considering what and how much the person consumed, the time involved, their behavior at the time, and their condition shortly after leaving, citing Delta Tau Delta, Beta Alpha Chapter v. Johnson and Booker, Inc. v. Morrill. The evidence showed Coyle consumed alcohol only at Buddy & Pal’s for several hours, and Officer Janson observed Coyle's significant intoxication symptoms within minutes of him leaving the bar and striking Shearer. The jury was entitled to disbelieve Coyle’s testimony about his minimal consumption and infer visible intoxication at the time of service. Regarding damages, the court held that Shearer’s personal denial of seeking damages for somatic symptom disorder did not preclude the claim. Expert testimony from Dr. Hanlon linked the disorder to the accident, and Dr. Hanlon explained that individuals with the disorder often resist psychiatric diagnoses. Shearer also sought damages for other physical injuries, and the jury's general verdict did not delineate damages for specific injuries, allowing for recovery. Therefore, the court found no complete failure of proof for either element.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the principle that plaintiffs can establish dram shop liability through circumstantial evidence, particularly when direct testimony from the intoxicated person is unreliable or contradicts other evidence. It emphasizes that the jury has discretion to infer actual knowledge of visible intoxication based on observations made shortly after an individual leaves a bar, even if there's no direct testimony from bar staff. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that a plaintiff's lay understanding or personal denial of a medical diagnosis, such as somatic symptom disorder, does not necessarily preclude their legal claim for damages if expert medical testimony links the condition to the defendant's negligence and counsel advocates for it, especially when the condition itself involves a patient's resistance to psychiatric labeling.
