Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 22-3-2-8 (2025)
Qualifications; burden of proof
✓ 2025 Indiana Code: the 2026 session is not included
Sec. 8. No compensation is allowed for an injury or death due to the employee's knowingly self-inflicted injury, his intoxication, his commission of an offense, his knowing failure to use a safety appliance, his knowing failure to obey a reasonable written or printed rule of the employer which has been posted in a conspicuous position in the place of work, or his knowing failure to perform any statutory duty. The burden of proof is on the defendant.
Formerly: Acts 1929, c.172, s.8. As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.2, SEC.2209.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases, 1976–2018 · leading case: Indiana State Police v. Wiessing, 836 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Indiana State Police v. Wiessing, 836 N.E.2d 1038 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “) Accordingly, the Police's brief to the Board did not specifically challenge the Single Hearing Member's conclusion four, which provided Ind.Code § 22-3-2-8 "would not defeat the present claim.”
Wimmer Temporaries, Inc. v. Massoff, 740 N.E.2d 886 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000). “Specifically, Defendants contend that the term "acquiescence" has never been used so broadly as to eviscerate the plain language of Ind.Code § 22-3-2-8, and an employer's acquiescence to its employee's misconduct can only be used to defeat the affirmative defenses under Ind.”
Baker v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp. & Monsanto Co., 637 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 1994). “See also Ind.Code Ann. § 22-3-2-8 (West 1991) (no compensation allowed for knowingly self-inflicted injury or death).”
Cunningham v. Aluminum Co. of Am., Inc., 417 N.E.2d 1186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981). “Code 22-3-2-6 and Ind. Code 22-3-2-8 are’ unconstitutional in that these sections of the Workmen’s Compensation Act assertedly violate Ind.”
Vandenberg v. Snedegar Constr., Inc., 911 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “The Indiana legislature imposed the following bar to workers compensation benefits under Ind.Code 22-3-2-8: "No compensation is allowed for an injury or death due to the employee's knowingly self-inflicted injury.”
DeMichaeli & Assocs. v. Sanders, 340 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976). “§ 22-3-2-8 (Burns Code Ed., 1973), which is the disqualifying section quoted verbatim in the majority opinion.”
Tippmann v. Hensler, 716 N.E.2d 372 (Ind. 1999). “This footnote, however, in no way addresses whether the co-employee tortfeasor's intentions are relevant when she, and not the employer, is defending a claim of intentional injury.”
Bd. of Commissioners of Henry Cnty. v. Dudley, 340 N.E.2d 808 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976). “§ 22-3-2-8 (Burns Code Ed., 1974) provides that if the defendant sustains the burden of proving the affirmative of both these issues no compensation shall be allowed.”
Heritage Mut. Ins. Co. v. Larsen, 2001 WI 30, 624 N.W.2d 129. “54 (Anderson 2000) (denying compensation where injury resulted from intoxication); Ind. Code Ann. § 22-3-2-8 (Michie 2000) (denying compensation when injury is due to intoxication).”
State v. Puckett, 531 N.E.2d 518 (Ind. Ct. App. 1988). “Indiana Code 22-3-2-8 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides that no compensation is allowed for an injury or death due to the employee’s intoxication.”
Masterbrand Cabinets v. Douglas Waid, 72 N.E.3d 986 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “For example, Indiana Code Section 22-3-2-8 provides: No compensation is allowed for an injury or death due to the employee’s knowingly self-inflicted injury, his intoxication, his commission of an offense, his knowing failure to use a safety appliance, his knowing failure to…”
Nicklasch v. JLG Indus., Inc., 193 F.R.D. 568 (S.D. Ind. 1999). “, or his knowing failure to perform any statutory duty”, Indiana Code § 22-3-2-8). My review of Mr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.