Stacy Knighten v. East Chicago Housing Authority, Individually and d/b/a West Calumet Complex, Davis Security Service, LLC, and Donnell Caldwell
45 N.E.3d 788
Ind.2015Background
- Stacy Knighten, a resident of West Calumet Complex, was shot and paralyzed by Davis Security employee Donnell Caldwell while Caldwell was on duty at the Complex guard shack.
- Caldwell had a prior romantic relationship with Knighten; the shooting followed a personal dispute after Caldwell briefly left his post and returned.
- Knighten sued Caldwell, Davis Security (his employer), and the East Chicago Housing Authority, asserting negligence and respondeat superior liability against Davis Security.
- Davis Security moved for summary judgment arguing Caldwell acted outside the scope of employment (personal motives, off-post, unauthorized to carry a firearm).
- Davis Security pointed to statements limiting Caldwell’s duties to traffic monitoring; plaintiff pointed to the contract and memorandum requiring armed security and broader duties (deterring disruptive conduct).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Davis Security; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed, holding material factual disputes precluded summary judgment on respondeat superior liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Caldwell’s shooting was within the scope of employment for respondeat superior | Knighten: Caldwell’s conduct could have been in furtherance of employer’s business because duties included deterring disruptive conduct and the contract required armed security | Davis Security: Caldwell was away from his post, acting for purely personal reasons and was not authorized to carry/use a firearm while on duty | Reversed summary judgment — genuine factual disputes (nature/scope of duties, whether armed/authorized, whether conduct furthered employer’s business) preclude disposition as a matter of law |
Key Cases Cited
- Kroger Co. v. Plonski, 930 N.E.2d 1 (Ind. 2010) (elements of negligence: duty, breach, proximate cause)
- Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142 (Ind. 1999) (respondeat superior: employer liable for employee wrongful acts committed within scope of employment)
- Barnett v. Clark, 889 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (employee act outside scope when independent course not intended to serve employer; but motive to benefit employee does not preclude scope if act appreciably furthers employer)
- Celebration Fireworks, Inc. v. Smith, 727 N.E.2d 450 (Ind. 2000) (scope-of-employment requires act to be incidental to authorized conduct or to further employer’s business)
- Bushong v. Williamson, 790 N.E.2d 467 (Ind. 2003) (scope inquiry: whether conduct was to an appreciable extent in furtherance of employer’s business)