A leisurely afternoon exploring downtown Indianapolis on a pedal-powered pub tour ended with an unexpected injury and a lengthy legal battle for one participant. What began as a two-hour outing with friends, complete with stops at local bars and restaurants, eventually turned into a lawsuit after a man fell while getting off the elevated bicycle-style vehicle. Five years later, the Indiana Court of Appeals has upheld a ruling in favour of the tour operator and a restaurant, finding that a liability waiver signed before the ride protected the operator against the negligence allegations.
A pub crawl takes an unfortunate turn
According to the Indiana Court of Appeals, Anthony Boarman joined a group of friends for a Handlebar pedal-bar tour through downtown Indianapolis on August 1, 2021. The mobile platform accommodates groups of up to 12 passengers, who sit facing inward around the vehicle. Its seats are approximately 48 inches above the ground, with pedals serving as steps to help passengers climb aboard.The two-hour experience included stops at Monument Circle, Condado Tacos and Coaches Tavern. Boarman brought a six-pack of beer for the outing and also consumed alcoholic drinks during the tour.At the end of the journey, as the group returned to its starting point, Boarman attempted to get down from the elevated seat as though he were stepping off an ordinary bar stool. He fell directly onto the pavement and sustained injuries.
The waiver that became central to the case
Before boarding, Boarman and his companions had electronically signed liability waivers. The documents released The Handlebar, its owners, and employees from claims for injuries or damages before, during, or after the tour, including company-caused incidents.In June 2023, Boarman sued The Handlebar, Coaches Tavern operator Isentark Entertainment, and others. His allegations included negligence and violations of Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, which governs circumstances under which establishments can be held responsible for serving alcohol to intoxicated customers.The Indiana Court of Appeals noted that Boarman acknowledged signing the waiver and had not requested clarification about its provisions.
Why negligence was rejected
A key argument for Boarman was that The Handlebar had not included the waiver as an affirmative defense in its initial response to his complaint. The appeals court ruled that the company could use it later despite the omission.At his September 2024 deposition, Boarman was allowed to rebut the defense about the document. He also failed to demonstrate that introducing the waiver later had prejudiced his case.Most importantly, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that the document’s wording covered operator negligence injuries even though negligence was not explicitly mentioned.Consequently, the waiver barred Boarman’s negligence claim against The Handlebar.
Why the restaurant was also cleared
The court separately examined whether Coaches Tavern’s operator could be held responsible under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act.Under the relevant law, an establishment furnishing alcohol can face civil liability when it actually knows a customer is visibly intoxicated at the time of service and that intoxication subsequently causes an injury.The evidence did not establish that Boarman displayed obvious signs of intoxication while at the tavern. He had not stumbled, behaved belligerently or slurred his speech, and he did not experience difficulties getting back onto the pedal bar.The Indiana Court of Appeals therefore concluded that there was insufficient evidence that the restaurant’s employees knew he was visibly intoxicated when serving him.
Appeals court upholds the ruling
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment in favour of both defendants and rejected Boarman’s request to correct the earlier ruling.The November 6, 2026 memorandum decision emphasizes the need for properly drafted liability waivers and proof of liability under Indiana’s alcohol-serving statutes. As a memorandum decision, it is not binding precedent under Indiana Appellate Rule 65(D), and the court noted that it cannot be relied upon until certified.Boarman won a five-year lawsuit when the original judgment was upheld. The case hinged on the signed waiver and the lack of evidence the tavern knew he was drunk.
