respondeat superior doctrine in Indiana

2026This sort of broad approach resembles a respondeat superior analysis, which requires examining the “context in which the commission of the wrongful act arose.” Cox, 107 N.E.3d at 462 (quoting Barnett, 889 N.E.2d at 285 ).

2017A. Vicarious Liability [26] Vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer under the doctrine of respondeat superior “where the employee has inflicted harm while acting ‘within the scope of employment.’’ Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281, 283 (Ind. 2008).

2020Turning to the hospital setting, the Sword court mentioned that “Indiana courts have long followed the general rule that hospitals could not be held liable for the negligent actions of independent contractor physicians. [] [B]ecause hospitals are corporations and corporations could not legally practice medicine, the doctrine of respondeat superior could not be applied[.]” Id. at 149 .

2015In this case Knighten’s negligence claim against Davis Security is premised on the doctrine of respondeat superior, under which an employer who is not liable because of its own acts can be held liable “for the wrongful acts of [its] employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind.1999) (quoting Stropes v. Heritage House Childrens Ctr., 547 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. *792 1989)).

2026Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 25A-CT-832 | February 27, 2026 Page 21 of 25 Indeed, under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the employer’s control over the employee shapes a broader duty based upon the acts of the employee within the broadly defined “scope of employment.” See Cox, 107 N.E.3d at 461 (noting that the doctrine of respondeat superior is “rooted in . . . control”).

2026This sort of broad approach resembles a respondeat superior analysis, which requires examining the “context in which the commission of the wrongful act arose.” Cox, 107 N.E.3d at 462 (quoting Barnett, 889 N.E.2d at 285 ).

2017A. Basic Principles The doctrine of respondeat superior “imposes liability, where none would otherwise exist,, on an employer for the wrongful acts .of his employee which are committed within the- scope of employment.” Stropes v. Heritage House Children’s Center of Shelbyville, Inc., 547 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. 1989).

2015In this case Knighten’s negligence claim against Davis Security is premised on the doctrine of respondeat superior, under which an employer who is not liable because of its own acts can be held liable “for the wrongful acts of [its] employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind.1999) (quoting Stropes v. Heritage House Childrens Ctr., 547 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. *792 1989)).

2020Knighten, 45 N.E.3d at 792 (citation omitted).

2019Auth., 45 N.E.3d 788, 791 (Ind. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted). [21] “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer, who is not liable because of its own acts, can be held liable for the wrongful acts of his employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Robbins v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 45 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotations omitted) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-967 | November 15, 2019 Page 9 of 10 (emphases added).

2013We said: “Because we have concluded that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of [a mental health counselor] on Grzan’s claims of malpractice and negligence, Charter [Hospital] cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Id. (emphasis added).

2013We said: “Because we have concluded that the trial court properly entered summary judgment in favor of [a mental health counselor] on Grzan’s claims of malpractice and negligence, Charter [Hospital] cannot be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior.” Id. (emphasis added).

2017An employer is not held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior because it did anything wrong, but “because of the [employer’s] relationship to the wrongdoer.” Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind. 1999)). [27] If a fact-finder determines that pharmacist LaCross, while acting within the scope of her employment, filled Mataranglo’s prescription and subsequently disclosed that information to Geisler, Meijer can also be held liable for LaCross’ wrongful act.

2015Id. at 108 .

2013It stated in part, "Why ... isn't it logical to say that a statute that partially relieves a dead tort feasor's estate from liability to an injured person will automatically relieve the tort feasor's master to a similar extent where the master's liability is predicated solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior." Biel, 130 Ind.App. at 53-54 , 153 N.E.2d at 143-44 .

2013It stated in part, "Why ... isn't it logical to say that a statute that partially relieves a dead tort feasor's estate from liability to an injured person will automatically relieve the tort feasor's master to a similar extent where the master's liability is predicated solely upon the doctrine of respondeat superior." Biel, 130 Ind.App. at 53-54 , 153 N.E.2d at 143-44 .

2013Columbus Reg’l Hosp. v. Amburgey, 976 N.E.2d 709, 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), reh’g denied, trans. denied. 3 The Qureshis do not argue that Coulter and Cox had a common-law agency relationship.

2012Further, although the statute applies only to employees of the Department of Child Services and not the organization itself, the only way to reach the organization is through the doctrine of respondeat superior; thus once the employees here are given immunity, DCS as a whole effectively has immunity for those actions and omissions.3 We are constrained by the plain language of the statute to hold that DCS is entitled to statutory immunity for all of the dismissed claims with the exception of the claim for fraud, which will be allowed to move forward. 3 In Columbus Reg'l Hosp. v. Amburgey, 2012

1999However, when immunity is abrogated, liability depends upon whether or not the doctrine of respondeat superior applies.”); Klepinger v. Board of Comm’rs of County of Miami, 143 Ind.App. 178, 201 , 239 N.E.2d 160, 173 (1968) ("We are of the opinion that the decision and reasoning of the Brinkman case should be applied to the counties of Indiana and, therefore, hold that the doctrine of governmental immunity as it applies to the counties of Indiana is hereby abrogated and that counties may now be held liable for the tort of its officers, agents or employees under the doctrine of respondeat super

1999However, when immunity is abrogated, liability depends upon whether or not the doctrine of respondeat superior applies.”); Klepinger v. Board of Comm’rs of County of Miami, 143 Ind.App. 178, 201 , 239 N.E.2d 160, 173 (1968) ("We are of the opinion that the decision and reasoning of the Brinkman case should be applied to the counties of Indiana and, therefore, hold that the doctrine of governmental immunity as it applies to the counties of Indiana is hereby abrogated and that counties may now be held liable for the tort of its officers, agents or employees under the doctrine of respondeat super

1996See Gomez v. Adams, 462 N.E.2d 212, 225 (Ind.Ct.App.1984); Biel, Inc. v. Kirsch, 180 Ind.App. 46, 52 , 153 N.E.2d 140, 148 (1958), trans. denied (1959).

1989Gomez v. Adams (1984), Ind.App., 462 N.E.2d 212 .

2020Res., 90 N.E.3d 1171, 1175 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied. [7] The issue here is whether Coach Amor’s conduct breached her duty of reasonable care to C.G. and the School Corporation is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. “[T]o prevail on a claim of negligence the plaintiff must show: (1) duty owed to plaintiff by defendant; (2) breach of duty by allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; and (3) compensable injury proximately caused by defendant’s breach of duty.” Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2016).

2020Drainage Bd. v. Isgrigg, 966 N.E.2d 678, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Carey v. Haddock, 881 N.E.2d 1050, 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied). [4] Second, it is not disputed by the parties on rehearing that, during the course of the trial court proceedings, the Estate’s theory of liability against Corizon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was a theory of direct liability, not a theory of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2020Res., 90 N.E.3d 1171, 1175 (Ind. 2018), cert. denied. [7] The issue here is whether Coach Amor’s conduct breached her duty of reasonable care to C.G. and the School Corporation is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. “[T]o prevail on a claim of negligence the plaintiff must show: (1) duty owed to plaintiff by defendant; (2) breach of duty by allowing conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; and (3) compensable injury proximately caused by defendant’s breach of duty.” Goodwin v. Yeakle’s Sports Bar & Grill, Inc., 62 N.E.3d 384, 386 (Ind. 2016).

2020Thus, Williams has sued the wrong party, and Guzman is not liable individually, even for nominal damages. [16] As we have explained: “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer whose employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of employment.” Ali v. Alliance Home Health Care, LLC, 53 N.E.3d 420, 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

2020Thus, Williams has sued the wrong party, and Guzman is not liable individually, even for nominal damages. [16] As we have explained: “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, vicarious liability will be imposed upon an employer whose employee commits a tort while acting within the scope of employment.” Ali v. Alliance Home Health Care, LLC, 53 N.E.3d 420, 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).

2020Drainage Bd. v. Isgrigg, 966 N.E.2d 678, 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citing Carey v. Haddock, 881 N.E.2d 1050, 1051 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), trans. denied). [4] Second, it is not disputed by the parties on rehearing that, during the course of the trial court proceedings, the Estate’s theory of liability against Corizon under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was a theory of direct liability, not a theory of liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

2019Auth., 45 N.E.3d 788, 791 (Ind. 2015) (internal citations and quotations omitted). [21] “Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer, who is not liable because of its own acts, can be held liable for the wrongful acts of his employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Robbins v. Trustees of Ind. Univ., 45 N.E.3d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (internal quotations omitted) Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 19A-CT-967 | November 15, 2019 Page 9 of 10 (emphases added).

2018See Dickson , 135 Ind. at 520 , 34 N.E. at 510 .

2018See Dickson , 135 Ind. at 520 , 34 N.E. at 510 .

2016Ansari maintains that the inaction of Sirius XM, with actual knowledge of Snow’s conduct, “raises a question of fact for a jury of whether the inaction . . . constitutes authorization under respondeat superior liability[.]” (Appellant’s App. p. 3). [11] Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer, who is not liable because of his own acts, can be held liable “for the wrongful acts of his employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Southport Little League v. Vaughan, 734 N.E.2d 261, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.

2016See Jarboe, 644 N.E.2d at 123 .

2016See Id. at 1188 . [35] On summary judgment, Ideal set forth to negate the element regarding whether Bemish was acting within the scope of employment.

2015Walker v. Martin, 887 N.E.2d 125, 138 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), reh’g denied, trans. denied.