Sony DADC US Inc. and Bradley J. Brown v. Mark Thompson
56 N.E.3d 1171
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- Thompson, a Securitas security guard at Sony’s Terre Haute facility, was struck in Sony’s parking lot on March 23, 2012, by a car driven by Sony employee Bradley Brown.
- Brown had clocked out but drove on Sony property to use an on-site employee recycling center to drop off his personal recyclables; he struck Thompson while making a U‑turn.
- Thompson sued Brown for negligence and Sony for vicarious liability (respondeat superior); Thompson moved for partial summary judgment that Brown was acting within the scope of employment.
- The trial court granted Thompson’s partial summary judgment holding Brown was within the scope of employment and denied Sony’s summary judgment motion; Sony’s reconsideration was denied.
- At trial the jury awarded $500,000 but found Thompson 50% at fault; judgment (after setoffs) was entered against Sony and Brown for $225,149. Sony appealed.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the summary‑judgment ruling on vicarious liability and held the trial court abused its discretion in giving an instruction on lost earning capacity (no supporting evidence), remanding for a new trial on vicarious liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Thompson) | Defendant's Argument (Sony) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brown was acting within the scope of employment when he struck Thompson | Brown’s trip to on‑site recycling furthered Sony’s ISO 14001 program and thus, to an appreciable extent, furthered Sony’s business | Brown had clocked out and was on a purely personal errand (drop off personal recyclables); not required by job, so outside scope | Reversed: genuine factual disputes exist; trial court erred granting partial SJ for Thompson — issue must go to jury |
| Whether evidence of and instruction on lost earning capacity were proper | Thompson relied on job offer testimony and argued lost earnings/opportunity supported damages instruction | Sony argued no evidence showed impairment of Thompson’s future ability to work; only lost wages for a limited period were shown | Admission of evidence was waived (no contemporaneous objection). But the jury instruction on lost earning capacity was erroneous because record lacked evidence of impairment of vocation; instruction was an abuse of discretion; remand allows re‑presentation of evidence at new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Warner Trucking, Inc. v. Carolina Casualty Insurance Co., 686 N.E.2d 102 (Ind. 1997) (scope‑of‑employment analysis where an employee’s personal motive may still fall within employer’s scope if conduct appreciably furthers employer’s business)
- Stropes by Taylor v. Heritage House Children’s Ctr. of Shelbyville, Inc., 547 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. 1989) (acts closely associated with employment may be within scope)
- Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (respondeat superior standards)
- Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (discussion of scope of employment and vicarious liability)
- Scott v. Nabours, 296 N.E.2d 438 (Ind. App. 1973) (distinguishing lost earnings from impairment of earning capacity; proof required to recover for lost earning capacity)