Muex v. Hindel Bowling Lanes, Inc.
596 N.E.2d 263, 1992 Ind. App. LEXIS 1120, 1992 WL 167524 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A proprietor providing alcoholic beverages may be liable for common law negligence for injuries to patrons caused by intoxicated third persons if the proprietor knew or should have known of a general threat posed by intoxicated patrons and failed to take reasonable precautions. However, statutory dram shop liability requires actual knowledge that the individual served was visibly intoxicated at the time of service.
Facts:
- On Thanksgiving evening, November 24, 1988, Larry and Clara Muex went to Hindel Bowling Lanes with a large group of family and friends.
- Four couples occupied the two neighboring lanes, and Larry Muex noticed three pitchers of beer on their tables and observed their loud and obnoxious behavior, leading him to believe they were intoxicated.
- Larry Muex did not witness any Hindel employee deliver beer to the couples or see any member of the group purchase beer, though he observed the level of beer in their pitchers change throughout the evening.
- The Muexes did not report or complain about the couples' behavior to any Hindel employee.
- After the Muex group had bowled their third game, a member of the second group threw a cigarette, and then another member threw beer, splattering people nearby.
- A fight ensued, during which Larry Muex fell backward and fractured his hand on a bowling ball rack.
- Jeanna Austin, the sole bartender at Hindel that evening, stated in an affidavit that she had no actual knowledge that any person she served was visibly intoxicated.
Procedural Posture:
- Larry and Clara Muex filed a complaint for negligence against Hindel Bowling Lanes, Inc., in a trial court (court of first instance).
- Hindel Bowling Lanes, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment with the trial court.
- The trial court granted Hindel Bowling Lanes, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment.
- The Muexes appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Indiana Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether the bowling alley's bartender had actual knowledge that any patron was visibly intoxicated when she furnished them with alcoholic beverages, thus precluding summary judgment on the statutory dram shop claim? 2. Does a genuine issue of material fact exist as to whether Larry Muex's injury was proximately caused by Hindel Bowling Lanes' common law negligence in failing to provide adequate security measures, precluding summary judgment on that claim?
Opinions:
Majority - Shields, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in determining a disputed issue of material fact does not exist regarding the bartender's actual knowledge of a patron's intoxication for the statutory claim. The court affirmed summary judgment on the Muexes' statutory claim because the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to reasonably support the inference that Hindel had actual knowledge that members of the second group were visibly intoxicated at the time of service, as required by IC 7.1-5-10-15.5(b)(1). Larry Muex's observations of loud behavior and changing beer levels were not sufficient to establish actual knowledge on the part of the server when contrasted with the bartender's affidavit denying such knowledge and the lack of complaints to Hindel employees. The statutory standard requires subjective actual knowledge. Yes, the trial court erred in determining a disputed issue of material fact does not exist regarding whether Larry Muex's injury was proximately caused by Hindel's common law negligence. The court reversed summary judgment on the Muexes' common law negligence claim, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists for a jury to determine if Hindel breached its duty of care and if that breach proximately caused Larry Muex's injury. Proprietors owe a duty to their business invitees to use reasonable care to protect them from injury caused by other patrons, including providing adequate staff to control disorderly conduct. Citing Bearman and Restatement (Second) of Torts § 344, the court reasoned that Hindel, as an establishment dispensing alcohol in a manner that doesn't track individual consumption, has reason to know that some patrons will become intoxicated and pose a general threat. Therefore, Hindel had a duty to take reasonable precautions, and whether those measures were adequate, and whether their inadequacy proximately caused the injury, are questions for the jury. Clara Muex's derivative claim for loss of consortium was also reinstated.
Concurring - Sullivan and Garrard, JJ.
Concurred with the majority opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly distinguishes between statutory dram shop liability and common law premises liability for establishments serving alcohol. It clarifies that proving statutory liability under IC 7.1-5-10-15.5 requires a high bar of "actual knowledge" of a patron's visible intoxication at the time of service, which is difficult to establish with circumstantial evidence alone. Conversely, for common law negligence, the case affirms a broader duty on proprietors who dispense alcohol to anticipate that some patrons will become intoxicated and pose a general threat, thus requiring reasonable precautions. This distinction is crucial for future cases, allowing plaintiffs to pursue common law claims even if they cannot meet the stringent "actual knowledge" requirement for statutory dram shop claims, broadening avenues for recovery against alcohol-serving establishments.
