ILNews

DTCI: Premises liability for the criminal acts of others

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

freybergerIndiana premises liability jurisprudence may be changing. If it does, being a business owner in Indiana will be increasingly risky. Not a risk premised on how good the business person may be, but premised on whether a crime will occur at the business and harm a customer, visitor or guest.

In March 2012, the Indiana Court of Appeals decided Santelli v. Rahmatulla, 966 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012). There, it was held that a premises owner could be jointly liable for the intentional criminal acts of a third party. If a jury determined the premises owner did not provide reasonable security in a given situation, that business owner would be held responsible for the full verdict, despite the fact that a co-defendant committed the crime. Part of the court’s rationale supporting the decision was the insurability of the premises owner compared to the inability of a victim to collect from the perpetrator. Transfer has been granted in this case, and oral argument is scheduled for Feb. 14.

In July 2012, the Court of Appeals issued Alea London, Ltd v. Nagy, 970, N.E.2d 272 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), in a memorandum decision. There, the court validated a provision in a bar owner’s commercial general liability policy excluding injuries sustained by assault and/or battery from coverage. While this decision is unpublished and sets no precedence, it undoubtedly implicates the prior Santelli decision. While the holding in Santelli was premised on insurability, the court in Alea London Ltd. gives the insurer the ability to exclude criminal acts of third parties from coverage. The likely consequence is that insurance companies will begin excluding coverage for the criminal acts of others from their commercial general liability policies.

The evolving trend in these cases is a weakening standard in judging whether the landowner owes a duty to protect the invitee from a criminal act by a third party. Indiana has long followed the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) § 344, which provides that a possessor of land who holds it open to the public owes a duty to discover that criminal acts are occurring, or are likely to occur, and to give a warning that is adequate to enable the visitors to protect against it. The existence of this duty is normally a question of law. Comment f to Section 344 states that the possessor of the land is not an insurer of the visitor’s safety and owes no duty to a visitor until he knows or has reason to know that the criminal acts are occurring or about to occur. Whether the landowner has such reason to know of the criminal act is determined by the “totality of the circumstances” test first enunciated in Delta Tau Delta v. Johnson, 712 N.E. 2d 968 (Ind. 1999).

The problem with this test is that it is a nebulous, fact-sensitive determination and leads to inconsistent results. For instance, in Santelli, a hotel maintenance worker walked off his job and stole a master key card. He returned thereafter and murdered a guest. The guest’s estate sued both the hotel owner and the former maintenance man who committed the murder. The jury found the owner was negligent in hiring the former maintenance man because he failed to conduct a background check, failed to retrieve a master key card from him when he quit, and generally failed to provide adequate security. Based on the decision, it appears that liability in Santelli was premised on the hotel owner’s failure to investigate his worker’s criminal history. Based on this rationale, and with the pervasiveness of crime today, it seems that every business owner should have reason to believe a crime could be committed on his property.

Business owners in Indiana will face the prospect of having to conduct criminal background checks on all prospective employees in order to prevent liability for the employee’s criminal acts on his premises. Every potential employee, visitor or patron will be suspect. Hiring convicted criminals will no longer be an option. Providing temporary housing for those on parole or probation will prescribe potential liability on the landowner in the event of on-premises recidivism. Ultimately, business owners and landowners will have no choice but to deny jobs, housing and services to anyone who has a criminal history, because to continue offering it would be to assume liability in the event that person commits another crime. While the owner’s liability for another’s crime is premised on insurability, there will ultimately be no such coverage due to valid exclusions.

Yes, it is risky to own a business in Indiana … now, more than ever.•

__________

Mr. Freyberger is a partner in the Evansville office of Kahn Dees Donovan & Kahn and is a director of the Defense Trial Counsel of Indiana. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. My situation was hopeless me and my husband was on the verge of divorce. I was in a awful state and felt that I was not able to cope with life any longer. I found out about this great spell caster drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com and tried him. Well, he did return and now we are doing well again, more than ever before. Thank you so much Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.comi will forever be grateful to you Drlawrencespelltemple@hotmail.com

  4. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  5. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

ADVERTISEMENT