Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-51-2-2 (2026)
Governmental entities and public employees excepted
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 2. This chapter does not apply in any manner to tort claims against governmental entities or public employees under IC 34-13-3 (or IC 34-4-16.5 before its repeal).
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-33-8.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.47.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Mangold Ex Rel. Mangold v. Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources, 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001).
Mangold Ex Rel. Mangold v. Indiana Dep't of Nat. Resources, 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-2. Instead, this case is governed by the common law, under which even the slightest contributory negligence by a plaintiff bars recovery.”
Funston v. Sch. Town of Munster, 849 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. 2006). “But the Indiana Comparative Fault Act expressly excludes application to governmental entities, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-2, and thus the common law defense of contributory negligence remains applicable for governmental defendants, such as the school in this case.”
Tincher v. Davidson, 762 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 2002). “…Record at 257, 261. [4] The Comparative Fault Act does not apply to tort claims against governmental entities. Ind.Code § 34-51-2-2.”
Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc., 815 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-2 (providing that the Comparative Fault Act does not apply "to tort claims against governmental entities or public employees"); see also Heck v.”
Penn Harris Madison Sch. Corp. v. Howard, 861 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. 2007). “1985) (now I.C. § 34-51-2-2 (2004)). This exemption for governmental entities from comparative fault means that the common law contributory negligence principles apply when a governmental entity is the defendant in negligence litigation.”
Barbara Hill, individually & as guardian of Charles Hill, incapacitated, & as next friend of Alexandra Hill, a minor,et al. v. Erich E. Gephart, City of Indianapolis, 54 N.E.3d 402 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “If the roadway is two-way, the pedestrian shall walk only on the left side of the roadway. [16] When a tort claim is brought against a governmental entity, such as the City of Indianapolis, the common law defense of contributory negligence remains applicable under Indiana Code…”
Hopper v. Carey, 716 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Highway Department Tort claims against governmental entities such as the Highway Department are subject to common law principles of negligence because Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act does not apply to such entities.”
John Kader v. State of Indiana, Dep't of Corr., & The Geo Grp., Inc., 1 N.E.3d 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “I.C. § 34-51-2-2. In such cases, contributory negli-genee on the part of a plaintiff provides a complete defense to liability for the State and other government actors who fall within the seope of the Act.”
Jalen Lee, A Minor Child, by & through his Next Friend, Crystal Estes & Crystal Estes, Individually v. Bartholomew Consol. Sch. Corp., City of Columbus, 75 N.E.3d 518 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “Code §§§ 34-51-2-2; -5; -6; see Hill v. Gephart, 54 N.”
Bowman Ex Rel. Bowman v. McNary, 853 N.E.2d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). “See Ind.Code § 34-51-2-2. As such, the holding of Heck v.”
Blocher v. DeBartolo Props. Mgmt., Inc., 760 N.E.2d 229 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001). “, and Ind. Code § 34-51-2-2 specifically precludes a comparative fault analysis in such cases.”
Raymond Kerr v. City of South Bend, 48 N.E.3d 348 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). “However, while these allegations of contributory negligence are relevant to the- question of Kerr’s eventual recovery, they are not relevant to threshold question of the City’s duty to maintain its own-property. 5 II.”
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.