Griffin v. Simpson, 948 N.E.2d 354

Eleven-year-old B.G. was injured when thrown from a golf cart during a six-hour break between volleyball tournament sessions at a teammate’s grandparents’ home.
Plaintiffs Kevin and Maureen Griffin sued the Simpson grandparents, Stacey and Sally Nihill, Team Indiana Volleyball, Inc. (TIV), and Coach Becky Murray for personal injury.
TIV and Coach Murray moved for summary judgment alleging no duty to B.G. during the break; the trial court granted the motion.
Coach Murray was invited to the Simpson home to rest during the break and slept; other adults supervised the cart activities.
The Simpsons directed the girls regarding golf-cart use; B.G. was a right-side passenger when the cart rolled and struck a barrier, causing serious injury.
Griffins appeal, asking whether Coach Murray owed a duty under in loco parentis or gratuitous-assumption theories; the court analyzes both theories and TIV’s vicarious liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Coach Murray owed a duty to supervise B.G. during the break.	Griffins argue in loco parentis or assumed-duty duty.	Murray did not assume a duty; not an in loco parentis guardian.	No duty found; summary judgment affirmed.
Whether in loco parentis applies to a private volleyball club setting.	Griffins rely on in loco parentis to impose duty.	Meets to private-club context; not applicable here.	In loco parentis does not apply as a matter of law.
Whether Coach Murray gratuitously assumed a duty to supervise the golf-cart activity.	Her affirmative conduct inferred supervision responsibility.	No deliberate undertaking of duty; not a team event.	No gratuitous assumption; no duty.
Whether TIV can be held liable under respondeat superior for Coach Murray’s alleged negligence.	TIV liable if Murray’s conduct breached duty within scope of employment.	No duty by Murray; no tort; no vicarious liability.	Respondeat superior not applicable; judgment affirmed.

Turner v. Parish of Jefferson Through Department of Recreation, 721 So. 2d 64 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1998), 721 So. 2d 64 (La. App. 5 Cir. 1998) (distinguishes in loco parentis; hotel-endpoint duties not controlling here)
Linke v. Northwest School Corp., 763 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. 2002), 763 N.E.2d 972 (Ind. 2002) (in loco parentis relevance in schools)
Stratton v. State, 791 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), 791 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (application to private settings discussed)
Davis v. LeCuyer, 849 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006), 849 N.E.2d 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (negligent supervision in host-guest context)
Sizemore v. Templeton Oil Co., 724 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), 724 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) ( gratuitous-assumption of duty requires deliberate undertaking)
Van Duyn v. Cook-Teague P'ship, 694 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998), 694 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (duty not bound by plaintiff’s perception; focus on reality)
Holtz v. J.J.B. Hilliard W.L. Lyons, Inc., 185 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1999), 185 F.3d 753 (7th Cir. 1999) (principle on gratuitous-assumption of duty (cited in analysis))