Ellis v. City of Martinsville, 940 N.E.2d 1197

A barn fire on April 24, 2006 occurred on the Ellises' property in Martinsville, Indiana, adjacent to a triplex owned by the Ellises.
The Ellises filed suit in 2008 against the Martinsville Fire Department (MFD), City of Martinsville, and Terry Hart seeking damages for negligence and related claims.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the MFD and Hart in various respects, later clarifying the MFD was the prevailing party, while Hart may have remained potentially liable personally.
The Ellises argued the MFD owed a duty and that governmental immunity did not bar claims; they also argued Hart acted outside the scope of employment.
Hart asserted that, as an employee acting within the scope of his official duties, the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA) barred personal liability.
The appellate court affirmed, holding common law governmental immunity barred the claims against the MFD and that Hart was immune personally under the ITCA because his conduct occurred within the scope of employment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether MFD is immune under common law for alleged failures to provide fire protection	Ellises contend MFD duties were not immune and that willful/wanton acts could pierce immunity.	MFD argues common law immunity applies (Lamb, O'Connell, Gates) for acts during firefighting.	Immune under common law; summary judgment in favor of MFD affirmed.
Whether Hart can be sued personally under the ITCA	Ellises maintain Hart’s acts were outside scope or malicious, making personal liability possible.	Hart argues ITCA bars suit against him personally when acting within the scope of employment.	No personal liability; ITCA bars suit against Hart as an individual; summary judgment affirmed for Hart.
Whether Hart’s conduct was within the scope of employment to trigger ITCA protection	Ellises contend Hart acted in an independent course of conduct not tied to MFD duties.	Hart and MFD argue Hart acted as a fire department employee, with duties aligned to firefighting.	Hart acted within the scope of employment; his conduct was incidental to authorized activity, ITCA applies.
Whether the trial court properly applied governmental immunity and ITCA to bar all claims	Ellises contend neither immunity nor ITCA should bar claims given alleged willful misconduct.	Defendants maintain all claims are barred by common law immunity and ITCA due to scope of employment.	Yes; the court’s grant of summary judgment to MFD and Hart was proper.

O'Connell v. Town of Schererville of Lake County, 779 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (governmental immunity contexts preserved)
Lamb v. Bloomington, 741 N.E.2d 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (adequate fire protection as immunity basis; pre-fire acts may be excluded)
Gates v. Town of Chandler, Water Dep't, 725 N.E.2d 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (fire protection immunity line of cases)
Campbell v. State, 284 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. 1972) (legislature to decide governmental immunity categories)
Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224 (Ind. 1999) (retains limited immunities post Campbell)
Wilson v. Isaacs, 917 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (scope of employment under ITCA; agency relationship standard)
City of Gary v. Conat, 810 N.E.2d 1112 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (employee acting within scope bars personal liability)
Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (Restatement agency; outside-scope acts may or may not be within scope)
Stropes v. Heritage House Childrens Ctr., 547 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. 1989) (potentially within scope when acts further employer's business)
Wilson v. Isaacs, 717 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (unknown; listed here for scope-of-employment framework)
E.g., U.S. Auto Club, Inc. v. Smith, 717 N.E.2d 919 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (willful and wanton standard discussion cited in opinion)