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 While this decision is unpublished and sets no precedence, it undoubtedly implicates the prior Santelli decision.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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  2. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  3. Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh who is helping Sister Fuller with this Con Artist Kevin Bart McCarthy scares Sister Joseph Therese, Patricia Ann Fuller very much that McCarthy will try and hurt Patricia Ann Fuller and Paul Hartman of Burbank, Oh or any member of his family. Sister is very, very scared, (YES, I AM) This McCarthy guy is a real, real CON MAN and crook. I try to totall flatter Kevin Bart McCARTHY to keep him from hurting my best friends in this world which are Carolyn Rose and Paul Hartman. I Live in total fear of this man Kevin Bart McCarthy and try to praise him as a good man to keep us ALL from his bad deeds. This man could easy have some one cause us a very bad disability. You have to PRAISAE in order TO PROTECT yourself. He lies and makes up stories about people and then tries to steal if THEY OWN THRU THE COURTS A SPECIAL DEVOTION TO PROTECT, EX> Our Lady of America DEVOTION. EVERYONE who reads this, PLEASE BE CAREFUL of Kevin Bart McCarthy of Indianapolis, IN My Phone No. IS 419-435-3838.

  4. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.

  5. I had a hospital and dcs caseworker falsify reports that my child was born with drugs in her system. I filed a complaint with the Indiana department of health....and they found that the hospital falsified drug screens in their investigation. Then I filed a complaint with human health services in Washington DC...dcs drug Testing is unregulated and is indicating false positives...they are currently being investigated by human health services. Then I located an attorney and signed contracts one month ago to sue dcs and Anderson community hospital. Once the suit is filed I am taking out a loan against the suit and paying a law firm to file a writ of mandamus challenging the courts jurisdiction to invoke chins case against me. I also forwarded evidence to a u.s. senator who contacted hhs to push an investigation faster. Once the lawsuit is filed local news stations will be running coverage on the situation. Easy day....people will be losing their jobs soon...and judge pancol...who has attempted to cover up what has happened will also be in trouble. The drug testing is a kids for cash and federal funding situation.