## Facts

- Charles Hellums hunted deer on private property with one party; Alan Raber hunted on the same property with William Nugent and Ernest Raber.
- Alan had previously observed another vehicle on the property and assumed other hunters were present.
- Alan’s party saw a deer in a field and all three shot at it; Alan reported firing four rapid shots.
- Roughly five to ten seconds later, a second deer appeared running in about the same direction; Ernest fired multiple shots and one bullet struck and injured Hellums.
- It was undisputed that the bullet that struck Hellums was not fired from Alan’s gun.
- Hellums’s party had seen Alan’s party before the first volley and estimated they were about 175–200 yards away; Hellums and his father wore orange hats, waved, and shouted to get attention.
- Hellums sued Alan, Ernest, and Nugent, alleging negligence in failing to ascertain other hunters’ presence before shooting.
- The trial court granted Alan summary judgment on the ground that Alan did not proximately cause the injury because his bullet did not hit Hellums.

## Issues

1. Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Alan’s conduct was a proximate cause of Hellums’s injury, despite the undisputed fact that Ernest fired the injuring bullet.
2. Whether evidence could support liability based on substantial assistance or encouragement of another’s negligent shooting (concerted-action theory).

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary judgment for Alan and remanded.
- The court held that proximate cause presented a triable fact issue on this record.
- The court concluded a reasonable factfinder could infer Alan’s shooting conduct may have encouraged or prompted Ernest’s negligent shooting, making summary judgment improper.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper only when the evidence shows no genuine dispute of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Proximate cause is ordinarily a question for the factfinder and may be resolved as a matter of law only in clear cases.
- A defendant may face liability even if he did not inflict the physical injury when evidence supports that he substantially assisted or encouraged another’s tortious conduct, consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876.
- When competing inferences exist regarding whether a defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about harm (including through encouragement of a co-actor), the issue should proceed to trial.

## Conclusion

The court held that Alan Raber was not entitled to summary judgment merely because he did not fire the bullet that struck Hellums; evidence permitting an inference that Alan’s conduct substantially encouraged Ernest’s negligent shooting created a genuine issue of material fact on proximate cause, requiring reversal and remand.


Hellums v. Raber, 853 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006)