127 N.E.3d 1198
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- On June 4, 2015, Bryce Burton (motorcyclist) was injured after taking evasive action to avoid a head-on collision with an oncoming vehicle driven by Indiana State Trooper Martin Benner.
- Benner was off-duty, wearing civilian clothes, driving an unmarked ISP Dodge Charger to his son’s baseball game; ISP permits limited personal use of state vehicles if troopers maintain radio contact for emergencies.
- Benner attempted to pass a vehicle, moved into the northbound lane, then aborted the pass when he saw Burton; Burton braked, lost control, and left the roadway.
- Burton sued Benner for damages; Benner pleaded immunity, asserting he was acting within the scope of employment at the time of the crash.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment holding Benner was within the scope of employment; Burton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Benner was acting within the scope of employment (entitling him to immunity) | Burton: Benner was off-duty and on a personal trip, so not within scope | Benner: Authorized de minimis personal use and maintained radio contact, so conduct fell within employment scope | Reversed: Triable factual dispute exists; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Tharp, 914 N.E.2d 756 (Ind. 2009) (standard for reviewing summary judgment)
- Hughley v. State, 15 N.E.3d 1000 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment should not short-circuit factual disputes)
- Knighten v. E. Chi. Hous. Auth., 45 N.E.3d 788 (Ind. 2015) (scope-of-employment is typically a question for the factfinder)
- Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing when employee acts within scope of employment)