Sec. 3. (a) A governmental entity or an employee
acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if
a loss results from the following:
(1) The natural condition of unimproved property.
(2) The condition of a reservoir, dam, canal, conduit, drain, or
similar structure when used by a person for a purpose that is not
foreseeable.
(3) The temporary condition of a public thoroughfare or extreme
sport area that results from weather.
(4) The condition of an unpaved road, trail, or footpath, the
purpose of which is to provide access to a recreation or scenic
area.
(5) The design, construction, control, operation, or normal
condition of an extreme sport area, if all entrances to the extreme
sport area are marked with:
(A) a set of rules governing the use of the extreme sport area;
(B) a warning concerning the hazards and dangers associated
with the use of the extreme sport area; and
(C) a statement that the extreme sport area may be used only by
persons operating extreme sport equipment.
This subdivision shall not be construed to relieve a governmental
entity from liability for the continuing duty to maintain extreme
sports areas in a reasonably safe condition.
(6) The initiation of a judicial or an administrative proceeding.
(7) The performance of a discretionary function; however, the
provision of medical or optical care as provided in IC 34-6-2.1-54
shall be considered as a ministerial act.
(8) The adoption and enforcement of or failure to adopt or
enforce:
(A) a law (including rules and regulations); or
(B) in the case of a public school or charter school, a policy;
unless the act of enforcement constitutes false arrest or false
imprisonment.
(9) An act or omission performed in good faith and without
malice under the apparent authority of a statute which is invalid
if the employee would not have been liable had the statute been
valid.
(10) The act or omission of anyone other than the governmental
entity or the governmental entity's employee.
(11) The issuance, denial, suspension, or revocation of, or failure
or refusal to issue, deny, suspend, or revoke any permit, license,
certificate, approval, order, or similar authorization, where the
authority is discretionary under the law.
(12) Failure to make an inspection, or making an inadequate or
negligent inspection, of any property, other than the property of
a governmental entity, to determine whether the property
complied with or violates any law or contains a hazard to health
or safety.
(13) Entry upon any property where the entry is expressly or
impliedly authorized by law.
(14) Misrepresentation if unintentional.
(15) Theft by another person of money in the employee's official
custody, unless the loss was sustained because of the employee's
own negligent or wrongful act or omission.
(16) Injury to the property of a person under the jurisdiction and
control of the department of correction if the person has not
exhausted the administrative remedies and procedures provided
by section 7 of this chapter.
(17) Injury to the person or property of a person under supervision
of a governmental entity and who is:
(A) on probation;
(B) assigned to an alcohol and drug services program under IC 12-23, a minimum security release program under IC 11-10-8,
a pretrial conditional release program under IC 35-33-8, or a
community corrections program under IC 11-12; or
(C) subject to a court order requiring the person to be escorted
by a county police officer while on or in a government building
(as defined in IC 36-9-13-3) owned by a county building
authority under IC 36-9-13, unless the injury is the result of an
act or omission amounting to:
(i) gross negligence;
(ii) willful or wanton misconduct; or
(iii) intentional misconduct.
(18) Design of a highway (as defined in IC 9-13-2-73), toll road
project (as defined in IC 8-15-2-4(4)), tollway (as defined in IC 8-15-3-7), or project (as defined in IC 8-15.7-2-14) if the claimed
loss occurs at least twenty (20) years after the public highway, toll
road project, tollway, or project was designed or substantially
redesigned; except that this subdivision shall not be construed to
relieve a responsible governmental entity from the continuing
duty to provide and maintain public highways in a reasonably safe
condition.
(19) Development, adoption, implementation, operation,
maintenance, or use of an enhanced emergency communication
system.
(20) Injury to a student or a student's property by an employee of
a school corporation if the employee is acting reasonably under a:
(A) discipline policy adopted under IC 20-33-8-12; or
(B) restraint and seclusion plan adopted under IC 20-20-40-14.
(21) An act or omission performed in good faith under the
apparent authority of a court order described in IC 35-46-1-15.1
or IC 35-46-1-15.3 that is invalid, including an arrest or
imprisonment related to the enforcement of the court order, if the
governmental entity or employee would not have been liable had
the court order been valid.
(22) An act taken to investigate or remediate hazardous
substances, petroleum, or other pollutants associated with a
brownfield (as defined in IC 13-11-2-19.3) unless:
(A) the loss is a result of reckless conduct; or
(B) the governmental entity was responsible for the initial
placement of the hazardous substances, petroleum, or other
pollutants on the brownfield.
(23) The operation of an off-road vehicle (as defined in IC 14-8-2-185) by a nongovernmental employee, or by a
governmental employee not acting within the scope of the
employment of the employee, on a public highway in a county
road system outside the corporate limits of a city or town, unless
the loss is the result of an act or omission amounting to:
(A) gross negligence;
(B) willful or wanton misconduct; or
(C) intentional misconduct.
This subdivision shall not be construed to relieve a governmental
entity from liability for the continuing duty to maintain highways
in a reasonably safe condition for the operation of motor vehicles
licensed by the bureau of motor vehicles for operation on public
highways.
(24) Any act or omission rendered in connection with a request,
investigation, assessment, or opinion provided under IC 36-9-28.7.
(b) This subsection applies to a cause of action that accrues during
a period of a state disaster emergency declared under IC 10-14-3-12 to
respond to COVID-19, if the state of disaster emergency was declared
after February 29, 2020, and before April 1, 2022. A governmental
entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's
employment is not liable for an act or omission arising from COVID-19
unless the act or omission constitutes gross negligence, willful or
wanton misconduct, or intentional misrepresentation. If a claim
described in this subsection is:
(1) a claim for injury or death resulting from medical malpractice;
and
(2) not barred by the immunity provided under this subsection;
the claimant is required to comply with all of the provisions of IC 34-18 (medical malpractice act).
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-16.5-3.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.8. Amended by P.L.142-1999,
SEC.2; P.L.250-2001, SEC.6; P.L.280-2001, SEC.42; P.L.1-2002,
SEC.144; P.L.161-2003, SEC.5; P.L.1-2005, SEC.218; P.L.208-2005,
SEC.14; P.L.47-2006, SEC.48; P.L.121-2009, SEC.15; P.L.86-2010,
SEC.10; P.L.125-2011, SEC.1; P.L.122-2013, SEC.2; P.L.220-2013,
SEC.2; P.L.65-2016, SEC.21; P.L.166-2021, SEC.14; P.L.135-2023,
SEC.1; P.L.186-2025, SEC.182.
Notes of Decisions
East Chicago Police Dep't v. Bynum, 826 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 52× “See Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3. Governmental entities and their employees are subject to liability for torts committed by them unless they can prove that one of the immunity provisions of the ITCA applies.”
Minks v. Pina, 709 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 30× “However, it is now located at I.C. § 34-13-3-3. [4] Because we find this issue dispositive, we need not address whether the Hammond defendants are immune under subsections (6) and (9) of the Act or whether Minks has stated a claim for relief under state law.”
Noble Cnty. v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001).
· cites it 21× “Noble County argues that two of the specific immunity provisions of Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3 preclude the damages Rogers sought in her counterclaim: A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from: .”
Giles v. Brown Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 868 N.E.2d 478 (Ind. 2007).
· cites it 32× “[2] Formerly I.C. § 34-13-3-3(18). [3] At various places, Giles has suggested that she is entitled to recovery as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Brown County and Columbus Regional Hospital.”
City of South Bend v. Dollahan, 918 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 20× “I.C. § 34-13-3-3. For instance, Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3 provides that "[a] governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from the following: .”
Bd. of Com'rs of Cnty. of Harrison v. Lowe, 753 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 28× “A panel of this court sought to determine as a matter of first impression whether Tell City was immune from liability under paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 34-13-3-3. The Tell City court noted that local authorities are authorized by statute to regulate traffic on streets and…”
Bartholomew Cnty. v. Johnson, 995 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 30× “The County also filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to immunity from liability for the acts or omissions of the designer and builder pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(10), which provides that “[a] governmental entity or an employee acting…”
Putnam Cnty. Sheriff v. Price, 954 N.E.2d 451 (Ind. 2011).
· cites it 12× “The ITCA "allows suits against governmental entities for torts committed by their employees but grants immunity under the specific circumstances enumerated in Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3.”
King Ex Rel. King v. Ne. Sec., Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. 2003).
· cites it 6× “I.C. § 34-13-3-3. Specifically, the District contends that both section 3(9) and 3(7) 2 of the ITCA shield the District from liability for negligence.”
City of Beech Grove v. Cathy J. Beloat, 50 N.E.3d 135 (Ind. 2016).
· cites it 6× “The City responded, denying any liability and asserting, among other things, immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA), Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3. On March 19, 2014, the City motioned for summary judgment.”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(1) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(10) — 7 cases
Bartholomew Cnty. v. Johnson, 995 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“The County also filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to immunity from liability for the acts or omissions of the designer and builder pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(10), which provides that “[a] governmental entity or an employee acting…”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(11) — 7 cases
City of South Bend v. Dollahan, 918 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
“I.C. § 34-13-3-3. For instance, Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3 provides that "[a] governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from the following: .”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(12) — 7 cases
Bartholomew Cnty. v. Johnson, 995 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“The County also filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to immunity from liability for the acts or omissions of the designer and builder pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(10), which provides that “[a] governmental entity or an employee acting…”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(13) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(14) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(16) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(17) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(18) — 7 cases
Giles v. Brown Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 868 N.E.2d 478 (Ind. 2007).
“[2] Formerly I.C. § 34-13-3-3(18). [3] At various places, Giles has suggested that she is entitled to recovery as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Brown County and Columbus Regional Hospital.”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(19) — 4 cases
Giles v. Brown Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 868 N.E.2d 478 (Ind. 2007).
“[2] Formerly I.C. § 34-13-3-3(18). [3] At various places, Giles has suggested that she is entitled to recovery as a third-party beneficiary of the contract between Brown County and Columbus Regional Hospital.”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(20) — 1 case
Noble Cnty. v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001).
“Noble County argues that two of the specific immunity provisions of Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3 preclude the damages Rogers sought in her counterclaim: A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from: .”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(3) — 12 cases
Putnam Cnty. Sheriff v. Price, 954 N.E.2d 451 (Ind. 2011).
“The ITCA "allows suits against governmental entities for torts committed by their employees but grants immunity under the specific circumstances enumerated in Indiana Code section 34-13-3-3.”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(5) — 4 cases
Noble Cnty. v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001).
“Noble County argues that two of the specific immunity provisions of Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3 preclude the damages Rogers sought in her counterclaim: A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from: .”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(6) — 30 cases
Bd. of Com'rs of Cnty. of Harrison v. Lowe, 753 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“A panel of this court sought to determine as a matter of first impression whether Tell City was immune from liability under paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 34-13-3-3. The Tell City court noted that local authorities are authorized by statute to regulate traffic on streets and…”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(7) — 45 cases
Minks v. Pina, 709 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
“However, it is now located at I.C. § 34-13-3-3. [4] Because we find this issue dispositive, we need not address whether the Hammond defendants are immune under subsections (6) and (9) of the Act or whether Minks has stated a claim for relief under state law.”
Bd. of Com'rs of Cnty. of Harrison v. Lowe, 753 N.E.2d 708 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001).
“A panel of this court sought to determine as a matter of first impression whether Tell City was immune from liability under paragraphs (6) and (7) of section 34-13-3-3. The Tell City court noted that local authorities are authorized by statute to regulate traffic on streets and…”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(8) — 63 cases
East Chicago Police Dep't v. Bynum, 826 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
“See Ind.Code § 34-13-3-3. Governmental entities and their employees are subject to liability for torts committed by them unless they can prove that one of the immunity provisions of the ITCA applies.”
Noble Cnty. v. Rogers, 745 N.E.2d 194 (Ind. 2001).
“Noble County argues that two of the specific immunity provisions of Indiana Code § 34-13-3-3 preclude the damages Rogers sought in her counterclaim: A governmental entity or an employee acting within the scope of the employee's employment is not liable if a loss results from: .”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(8)(A) — 5 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(8)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(8)(b) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(9) — 6 cases
Minks v. Pina, 709 N.E.2d 379 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
“However, it is now located at I.C. § 34-13-3-3. [4] Because we find this issue dispositive, we need not address whether the Hammond defendants are immune under subsections (6) and (9) of the Act or whether Minks has stated a claim for relief under state law.”
Bartholomew Cnty. v. Johnson, 995 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“The County also filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to immunity from liability for the acts or omissions of the designer and builder pursuant to Indiana Code Section 34-13-3-3(10), which provides that “[a] governmental entity or an employee acting…”
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(10) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(11) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(12) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(13) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(17) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(17)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(18) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(19) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(3) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(6) — 2 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(7) — 3 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(8) — 10 cases
— Ind. Code § 34-13-3-3(a)(8)(A) — 1 case
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.