Injurious actions of the deputy trustee were not sufficiently associated with employment duties so as to fall within scope of employment

To access case, press here

Dickson, Justice.
The plaintiff Debra A. Barnett is seeking damages from the defendant Camille Clark, Trustee of Pleasant Township in Steuben County, Indiana, for the conduct constituting rape, sexual battery, and false imprisonment committed by one of the Trustee’s employees. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant Trustee, and the Court of Appeals reversed. In appealing the grant of summary judgment, the plaintiff has contended that that the Trustee may be held vicariously liable for its employee’s actions under the theory of respondeat superior for wrongful acts committed within the scope of the employment. She argues that summary judgment is improper because some of the employee’s acts were authorized, and thus the question of whether the employee’s injurious acts to the plaintiff, even if unauthorized, were nevertheless within the scope of employment, is a jury question. In response, the defendant Trustee contends that, because the employee’s authorized job duties did not involve any physical contact with the plaintiff, the Trustee is not vicariously liable as a matter of law for acts clearly outside the scope of employment.
Conclusion (slip op. at 6):  We affirm the judgment of the trial court granting summary judgment to the defendant, Camille Clark, Trustee of Pleasant Township, Steuben County, Indiana.
Key Analysis (slip op. at 6):  We conclude here that the injurious actions of the deputy trustee were not sufficiently associated with his employment duties so as to fall within the scope of the deputy’s employment by the defendant Trustee . . . Other than perhaps a greeting handshake, the employee was not explicitly or impliedly authorized to touch or confine applicants for assistance. His alleged acts of confining, sexually touching, and raping the plaintiff were not an extension of authorized physical con-tact. Such acts were not incidental to nor sufficiently associated with the deputy trustee’s authorized duties. They did not further his employer’s business. And they were not motivated to any extent by his employer’s interests.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.

About Bose McKinney & Evans LLP

Bose McKinney & Evans LLP is a business law firm, headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, serving both publicly held and privately held businesses, governmental entities and high-growth industries. Our clients include Fortune 100 companies, international manufacturers, national and regional financial institutions, agribusinesses, sports teams, university-incubated start-ups, media, utilities, cities and schools, to name a few. We strive to build strong relationships with our clients as key business advisors, to exceed expectations in the quality of our work, to be knowledgeable about our clients’ businesses and sectors, to be responsive to service needs and to continually seek to improve the delivery of client services. Our ultimate focus is on our clients.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s