Barath S. Raman

Trials:

• Donald Stauffer v. Steak n Shake, Inc.
  • Facts: a slip and fall case where Plaintiff slipped and fell and cut his hand on a corner guard while Plaintiff was walking toward the restroom.
  • Venue: Marion County
  • Result: Defense Verdict
  • Year:  2014 

• Amber Hamilton v. Steak n Shake, Inc.
  • Facts:  An altercation between two groups of customers inside a Steak n Shake restaurant.  The altercation included verbal threats.  Ultimately, the Plaintiff was shot in the face by non-party, Ricky Jackson after Plaintiff lunged and punched Mr. Jackson.
  • Venue:  Marion County
  • Result:  Favorable settlement half way through trial
  • Year: 2019 

• Jeffrey Certa v. Steak n Shake, Inc.
  • Facts: An altercation between two groups of customers outside of the Steak n Shake restaurant, in the parking lot.  Altercation culminated in Plaintiff being struck by a motor vehicle, which was driven by non-party, Mikal Gillham.  Plaintiff suffered a torn ACL.  
  • Venue:  Tippecanoe County
  • Result:  Jury apportioned 10% fault to Steak n Shake, 40% fault to Plaintiff, 20% to Mikal Gillham, and the remaining fault to various non-parties.  Plaintiff was awarded $160,000, and Steak n Shake responsible for $16,000.
  • Year: 2019 

• John and Tamara Settergren v. Family Dollar Stores of Indiana, LP
  • Facts:  Manager of Family Dollar was driving home “off the clock” employees during the winter.  While driving them home, the manager pulled out directly in front of Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing the accident.  The case was bifurcated, and the only issue tried was whether the manager was acting within the scope of his employment when he chose to drive his employees home after their work shifts had concluded.
  • Venue:  Marion County
  • Result: Defense Verdict – the jury found that the manager was not acting within the course and scope of his employment.
  • Year: 2019 

Appeals:

• Amber Hamilton v. Steak n Shake, Inc.
  • Facts:  An altercation between two groups of customers inside a Steak n Shake restaurant.  The altercation included verbal threats.  Ultimately, the Plaintiff was shot in the face by non-party, Ricky Jackson after Plaintiff lunged and punched Mr. Jackson.
  • After the Supreme Court passed the Goodwin v. Yeakle and Rogers v. Martin opinions, the trial court granted Steak n Shake’s Motion for Summary Judgment holding that Steak n Shake did not owe Plaintiff a duty of care.  Specifically, the Supreme Court in Goodwin and Rogers created a foreseeability test which mandated that trial courts must determine whether a duty exists in 3^rd party criminal premises liability cases.  The Supreme Court held that the appropriate test was to determine (without taking into consideration the facts of a case): (1) the broad type of plaintiff; and (2) the broad type of harm involved.  We argued that although Amber Hamilton would certainly be considered the broad type of Plaintiff, namely a customer of Steak n Shake, the harm of being shot in the face was not foreseeable as a broad type of harm.  The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment.  
  • Plaintiff appealed and argued that given how long the argument lasted inside the restaurant, the animosity shown between the 2 groups, and the fact that Steak n Shake took no efforts to mitigate the fight, this all meant that Plaintiff and the fact that she was shot in the face was foreseeable in the context of at least establishing a duty of care.  The Court of Appeals overturned the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment.
  • Petition to the Supreme Court was denied.
  • Year: 2018 

• Jefferey Certa v. Steak n Shake, Inc.
  • Facts: An altercation between two groups of customers outside of the Steak n Shake restaurant, in the parking lot.  Altercation culminated in Plaintiff being struck by a motor vehicle, which was driven by non-party, Mikal Gillham.  Plaintiff suffered a torn ACL.  
  • We filed summary judgment for the same reason in the Amber Hamilton v. Steak n Shake.  Specifically, under the new test established by the Supreme Court, we argued that the Plaintiff being struck by a motor vehicle in the parking lot was unforeseeable as a matter of law.  The Trial court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of Steak n Shake. 
  • Plaintiff appealed and made the same argument as opposing counsel made in the Amber Hamilton v. Steak n Shake case.  Specifically, opposing counsel argued that a back and forth verbal altercation which escalated into a physical fight outside of the restaurant was foreseeable to Steak n Shake, and Steak n Shake should have foreseen that someone would be injured. The Court of Appeals agreed with Plaintiff and overturned the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment.
  • Petition to the Supreme Court was denied.
  • Year: 2018