Davis v. Macey
901 F. Supp. 2d 1107
N.D. Ind.2012Background
- Plaintiff filed suit February 14, 2012 in state court; case removed to federal court May 8, 2012; Defendants are Eugene G. Macey, Jr. and USA Truck, Inc.; accident occurred February 15, 2010; Macey allegedly acted within USA Truck’s scope of employment; Counts I–II plead Macey’s negligence and USA Truck’s statutory negligence; Counts III (negligent entrustment) and IV (negligent hiring/retention) contend USA Truck is liable for Macey’s acts within employment scope; Defendants moved to dismiss Counts III–IV under Rule 12(b)(6) via 12(b)(6) converting to 12(c); Plaintiff responds arguing alternative theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts III and IV are duplicative given admitted scope of employment. | Plaintiff argues Counts III–IV allege alternative theories to respondeat superior. | Defendants contend these counts duplicate respondeat superior. | Counts III and IV dismissed as duplicative. |
| Whether Lange–Tindall rule bars negligent entrustment and negligent hiring when scope of employment is admitted. | Plaintiff asserts potential independent theories beyond respondeat superior. | Defendants rely on Lange–Tindall to bar duplicative claims. | Yes, dismiss counts III and IV under Lange–Tindall; no independent theories needed. |
| Whether the plaintiff should be allowed to amend to plead a freestanding respondeat superior claim. | Plaintiff seeks to preserve employer liability via respondeat superior. | Defendants oppose additional pleading. | Plaintiff granted leave to amend to include a freestanding respondeat superior claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Fort Wayne v. Moore, 706 N.E.2d 604 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (employer liable for employees' acts within scope of employment)
- Tindall v. Enderle, 320 N.E.2d 764 (Ind.Ct.App.1974) (negligent hiring/retention as separate theory; accrues when employee steps beyond scope)
- Briggs v. Finley, 631 N.E.2d 959 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (negligent hiring/retention recognized as a theory distinct from respondeat superior)
- Clark v. Aris, Inc., 890 N.E.2d 760 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (plausibility of alternative theories when scope not admitted; distinguishable when scope admitted)
- Lange v. B & P Motor Express, Inc., 257 F.Supp. 319 (N.D.Ind.1966) (where employer admits scope, additional negligent hiring/entrustment theories are unnecessary)
- Simmons, Inc. v. Pinkerton’s, Inc., 762 F.2d 591 (7th Cir.1985) (common-sense consideration of evidence; exceptions if punitive/intentional torts)
- Ellsworth v. Ludwig, 223 N.E.2d 764 (Ind.App.1967) (negligent entrustment against employer limited; rare exception when employee off duty)