Court Opinion

ID: 9724765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:12:03.58462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:10:38.894870
License: Public Domain

The "outrageous acts" language of Seymour National Bank v. State (1981), Ind., 428 N.E.2d 203, 204, does not constitute an "exception" to the cloak of immunity provided by LC. 34-4-16.5-8(7). It is merely a recognition that the doctrine of respondeat superior is inapplicable if the officer is not acting within the scope of his employment. The statute itself specifically states that immunity is conferred only when the employee is "acting within the scope of his employment".
Be that as it may, I agree with Judge Garrard's opinion in holding that the officer was engaged in enforcing the law. I further agree that whether or not the officer's conduct was "so outrageous as to be incompatible with the performance of the duty undertaken" and consequently outside the scope of the employment, it is of no moment because in either event, the City is not liable.
I concur in the reversal and in the order to grant the City's motion for summary judgment. *