Harrison County Sheriff's Department v. Leandra Ayers, Personal Representative of the Estate of Christine Britton
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 35
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Off-duty Harrison County Deputy John Britton and his wife Christine argued at home; Christine repeatedly threatened suicide and reached for John’s gun. John removed his gun, laid it on the bed, left the room, and Christine shot herself and died. Forensics and expert testimony established the gunshot was self-inflicted.
- John was disciplined by the Sheriff’s Department, charged criminally (pleaded guilty to criminal recklessness), and later dismissed from the civil suit.
- The Estate of Christine Britton sued the Sheriff and John asserting (1) negligence by John with vicarious liability for the Sheriff, (2) excessive force by John with vicarious liability, (3) negligent entrustment, and (4) negligent retention.
- After trial, the court granted judgment on the evidence for the Sheriff as to the last three counts but allowed the respondeat superior/negligence claim to proceed; a jury returned a $1.2 million verdict for the Estate (later reduced to $700,000 by statutory cap).
- The Sheriff moved to correct error asserting insufficient evidence that John acted within the scope of employment; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding John acted in a purely private capacity and the Sheriff cannot be vicariously liable as a matter of law; it remanded with instructions to grant the motion to correct error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sheriff is vicariously liable under respondeat superior for John’s actions | Police officers are effectively always on duty; John’s acts in subduing Christine and preventing access to his gun furthered the Sheriff’s interest in public safety and enforcement of mental-health authority | John acted solely in a private, marital context off duty in his bedroom; there is no nexus to his employment so respondeat superior cannot apply | Reversed: as a matter of law John acted in a purely private capacity; Sheriff not vicariously liable |
| Whether any authorized acts by the Sheriff put John into the situation that led to Christine’s death | Estate: some of John’s acts were authorized (mixture of motives suffices) so scope-of-employment is a jury question | No employer instruction or minimal nexus existed; no act was authorized or connected to employment | Court concluded no minimal nexus/authorization existed; question should not have gone to the jury |
| Whether jury verdict should survive a motion for judgment on the evidence | Estate points to evidence and reasonable inferences supporting negligence and scope-of-employment | Sheriff argues evidence points unerringly to no scope of employment and judgment on the evidence was warranted | Judgment on the evidence should have been entered for Sheriff on vicarious-liability claim; verdict reversed |
| Whether allowing vicarious liability here would improperly expand employer liability for off-duty officer acts | Estate suggests limiting factors (e.g., jurisdiction) would constrain expansion | Sheriff warns that accepting Estate’s theory would make employers liable for virtually all off-duty officer torts | Court agreed with Sheriff; rejected broad application that would expose employers to near-universal liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2003) (defines scope-of-employment test for respondeat superior)
- Stropes v. Heritage House Children Center, 547 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. 1989) (employer liable where unauthorized criminal act arose out of an authorized act)
- Konkle v. Henson, 672 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (if none of employee’s acts were authorized, scope-of-employment is a question of law)
- Dodson v. Carlson, 14 N.E.3d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (mixture of motives does not require sole employer motive to find scope of employment)
- City of Fort Wayne v. Moore, 706 N.E.2d 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (standard for reviewing judgment on the evidence)
- Southport Little League v. Vaughan, 734 N.E.2d 261 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (employer liability where authorized duties led into misconduct)
- Gomez v. Adams, 462 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (employer liability where security duties provided nexus to subsequent crimes)