Dale Sedam, Kim Sedam, and Bryan Norris, as co-personal representatives of the Estate of David C. Hamblin v. 2JR Pizza Enterprises, LLC doing business as Pizza Hut 013413
84 N.E.3d 1174
| Ind. | 2017Background
- Delivery driver Amanda Parker, employed by 2JR Pizza Enterprises (Pizza Hut), rear-ended a scooter operated by David Hamblin; Hamblin was then fatally run over by another motorist.
- Hamblin’s Estate sued Parker, Ralph Bliton (the subsequent driver), and Pizza Hut for wrongful death, alleging Parker’s negligence and asserting negligent hiring/training/supervision against Pizza Hut plus vicarious liability under respondeat superior.
- Pizza Hut admitted Parker was acting within the course and scope of employment and moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss the negligent hiring/training/supervision claim as duplicative.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment for Pizza Hut; the Court of Appeals reversed, allowing both theories to proceed; Pizza Hut sought transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court.
- The Indiana Supreme Court considered whether an employer’s admission of course and scope precludes a negligent hiring (or similar) claim absent special circumstances and affirmed the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligent hiring/training/supervision claims may proceed when employer admits employee acted within course and scope | Estate: Broadstreet permits separate negligent-hiring claims distinct from respondeat superior; Comparative Fault favors allowing both | Pizza Hut: Admission to course and scope makes negligent-hiring duplicative; Tindall bar applies absent special circumstances | Held: When employer admits course and scope, negligent-hiring claims are precluded absent special circumstances; only respondeat superior may proceed |
| Whether Broadstreet controls such that both claims are allowed despite admission | Estate: Broadstreet allows both claims and is consistent with Comparative Fault Act | Pizza Hut: Broadstreet did not address admissions and is distinguishable; it involved contested liability | Held: Broadstreet is not controlling where employer admits course and scope; Broadstreet did not decide the admission scenario |
| Whether Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act or Restatement (Third) of Agency requires allowing both claims | Estate: Comparative Fault and modern agency law support separate allocation and independent employer fault | Pizza Hut: Comparative Fault does not negate duplicative-recovery concerns; Restatement (Second) §317 and Tindall precedent control | Held: Comparative Fault and Restatement (Third) do not compel a different result; longstanding Tindall/Restatement (Second) line governs |
| Whether any special circumstances would permit both claims despite an admission | Estate: pointed to punitive-damage contexts and other exceptions | Pizza Hut: Special circumstances are narrow and inapplicable here | Held: Special circumstances may permit both claims (recognized in precedent), but none existed here; so negligence claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadstreet v. Hall, 168 Ind. 192, 80 N.E. 145 (Ind. 1907) (addressed admissibility of evidence and jury instruction where employer contested vicarious liability)
- Tindall v. Enderle, 162 Ind. App. 524, 320 N.E.2d 764 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) (holding that where employer stipulates course and scope, negligent hiring/retention claims are generally precluded)
- Parr v. McDade, 161 Ind. App. 106, 314 N.E.2d 768 (Ind. Ct. App. 1974) (discussing adoption of Restatement (Second) §317 and limits on negligent-hiring claims when acts fall within scope of employment)