Indiana Supreme Court justices are weighing whether a lawsuit can move forward against the owner of the Greenwood Park Mall and its security company related to a deadly 2022 food court shooting.
The court heard arguments Thursday from attorneys for Indianapolis-based Simon Property Group and security contractor Universal Protection Service, who maintain the lawsuit should be dismissed because such attacks can’t be foreseen.
The lawsuit in question was filed in 2024 involving Kaya Stewart, who was shot in the leg, and her younger sister, who just missed being wounded at the mall just south of Indianapolis.
Their attorneys assert that Simon and Universal were negligent in not providing adequate security, allowing the gunman to enter carrying a large backpack containing several weapons and spend more than an hour in a restroom before the attack.
Three people were killed in the July 2022 shooting before an armed bystander opened fire and fatally shot the gunman.
Family questions security
Gabriel Hawkins, an attorney for the Stewart family, told the justices that the victims should have the right to further investigate the mall’s security actions as the gunman walked through areas covered by at least a dozen video cameras.
“We know that these cameras were being monitored.” Hawkins said. “This is not a backpack that my son would carry to his high school. This is a backpack with a long extension specifically designed to carry assault rifles.”
A Marion County judge and the Indiana Court of Appeals have rejected attempts by Simon and Universal to dismiss the Stewart lawsuit on procedural grounds.
Wrongful death lawsuits filed by the families of those killed in the shooting — married couple Pedro Pineda, 56, and Rosa Mirian Rivera de Pineda, 37; and Victor Gomez, 30, all from Indianapolis — are on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether the Stewart lawsuit may proceed.
State’s gun laws also raised
Simon Property Group attorney Michael Limrick argued that Indiana trial rules don’t allow a lawsuit to proceed in an instance where the defendants couldn’t have foreseen something like a mass shooting happening.
“Just seeing someone with a backpack walking into a mall, I don’t think anybody can then make the leap to say that’s putting everybody on notice that a mass shooting is about to occur,” Limrick said.
Justice Christopher Goff asked the mall attorney about whether the security contractor should take steps to recognize someone as a potential shooter.
“I don’t think the court wants to slip into the mode of judicially sanctioned profiling, so I have a concern about that,” Limrick replied.
He then pointed to an Indiana law that generally allows people to openly carry guns in public places.
“We say that folks can walk down having a semi-automatic rifle out in the open,” Limrick said. “If the public policy of the state is that that’s OK, then how do we then flip it around and say that anytime somebody is exercising their statutory rights and they step into your business, you’re now obligated to assume they’re going to start shooting. I don’t think we can square that.”
Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.
