In a significant premises liability decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that victims of the 2022 mass shooting at Greenwood Park Mall may proceed with their lawsuit against Simon Property Group and its security contractor, Universal Protection Service, LLC.
On July 17, 2022, a gunman entered Greenwood Park Mall, where he spent over an hour in a restroom assembling weapons before opening fire in the food court. The shooting left three people dead and several others injured, including a minor. Families scrambled for safety in a terrifying and chaotic scene.
The victims and their families later filed suit, claiming the mall and its security company failed to prevent the attack—despite multiple red flags and a history of violent incidents on the premises.
The defendants—Simon Property Group and Universal Protection Service—argued that the shooting was not foreseeable and that they had no legal duty to prevent it. They asked the trial court to dismiss the case outright, before any discovery could take place.
The plaintiffs, on the other hand, argued that:
- There was a pattern of prior violence at the mall,
- The shooter remained in the restroom for over an hour engaging in suspicious activity,
- Security staff failed to act on observable warning signs.
They claimed these facts made the attack reasonably foreseeable, triggering a duty to protect mall visitors from harm.
The Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed with the defendants’ request to dismiss the case.
In its opinion issued on June 9, 2025, the court affirmed that property owners can owe a duty of care to invitees if a criminal act is reasonably foreseeable. While the court did not rule on whether the mall and its security contractor were ultimately negligent, it found that the plaintiffs presented enough evidence to proceed.
The case will now move forward to the discovery phase, where the plaintiffs will have the opportunity to gather documents and testimony related to the mall’s security protocols, incident history, and employee actions on the day of the shooting.
This decision underscores that businesses and property owners can be held accountable for failing to prevent violent crimes—especially when there are prior incidents or clear signs of danger.
For victims of mass shootings or other criminal acts in public spaces, it reinforces the right to pursue justice when reasonable security measures could have made a difference.
