During the late evening hours of August 27 and the early morning hours of August 28, 2010, Plaintiffs April Goodwin, Tiffany Randolph, and Javon Washington were seated at a table, socializing with friends at Yeakleâ€™s Sports Bar and Grill, a small establishment in Marion, Indiana. Another patron, Rodney Carter, was seated nearby with his wife. At some point, Carter thought he heard Washington make a derogatory remark about Carterâ€™s wife. This angered Carter who produced a handgun and fired at Washington. He struck Washington and accidentally struck Goodwin and Randolph as well. All three shooting victims survived, and Carter later pleaded guilty to three counts of battery with a deadly weapon.
Plaintiffs filed a complaint for damages against the Bar, alleging negligence in â€œfailing to provide security for its patrons; . . . failing to search Rodney Carter for weapons; . . . and failing to warn Plaintiffs that Rodney Carter was armed and dangerous.â€ After discovery, the Bar moved for summary judgment, arguing Carterâ€™s criminal acts were unforeseeable and, thus, the Bar had no duty to anticipate and take steps to prevent Carterâ€™s conduct. After a hearing, the trial court agreed and entered summary judgment in the Barâ€™s favor. Do you think this motion for summary judgment was subsequently upheld? Why or why not? [Goodwin v. Yeakleâ€™s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384 (2016).]