Court Opinion

ID: 9530659
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:02:17.02396+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:12.212616
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I agree with the majority’s holding that Weatherford independently stated a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and agree that his claim against the City and Chief Leonard should be dismissed, I respectfully dissent from its conclusion that the Indiana Tort Claims Act (the Act) provides immunity for Sergeant Seig, Officer Clendenen, Officer Crouse and Terry Ri-chwine (referred to collectively as “the officers”). I make the initial observation as a life-long Hoosier that, at least in Indiana, no one can question that removing someone from a regional basketball game in his home town, while watching his ward play, is as embarrassing and disruptive as one can imagine.
I acknowledge that service of a valid arrest warrant generally results in immunity under subsection (7) of the Act because the arresting officer is enforcing the law and acting within the scope of his employment. However, limits have been established which recognize that officers are not immune from liability for all actions that are somehow tied to effecting an arrest. Specifically, our supreme court has established that subsection (7) of the Act only confers immunity for the breach of a public duty, and provides no refuge to governmental entities or employees when a- private duty1 to an individual citizen to refrain from engaging in tortious conduct is breached. Quakenbush v. Lackey, 622 N.E.2d 1284, 1291 (Ind.1993). For example, the use of excessive force is not immunized conduct. See e.g., Kemezy v. Peters, 622 N.E.2d 1296, 1297 (Ind.1993). Moreover, an officer is not immune from liability if he drives his squad car in a negligent manner *187and causes damages, because the officer has a private duty to drive with reasonable care. See Quakenbush, 622 N.E.2d at 1291; Dahms v. Henry, 629 N.E.2d 249, 262 (Ind.Ct.App.1994).
Similarly, I would hold that the officers in the instant case owed Weatherford a private duty to refrain from intentionaíly inflicting emotional distress on him by following Chief Leonard’s specific instructions regarding Weatherford. Furthermore, I believe the officers breached this duty by deliberately disregarding Chief Leonard’s instructions that Weatherford was not to be arrested and, instead, conspiring to publicly arrest and humiliate him in retaliation for his filing of misconduct charges. In my view, the officers should not enjoy immunity for their intentional violation of orders that were specific to Weatherford.2 Therefore, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the officers’ motion to dismiss.
One the other hand, while I would hold that the City and Chief Leonard are also not immune, I would reach the same result as the majority as to these defendants, only for a different reason, and reverse the trial court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. In my view, while they mounted a joint effort with the officers in this appeal, the City and Chief Leonard stand in a position different from that of the officers. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, the City and Chief Leonard must be exonerated because there is no basis for their liability. See City of Fort Wayne v. Moore, 706 N.E.2d 604, 607 (Ind.Ct.App.1999) (noting the well-established maxim that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, an employer is only liable for the acts of its employees which were committed within the scope of their employment). Specifically, I note that Weatherford argued in his appellate brief that the officers’.actions fell outside their scope of employment, and he conceded at oral argument that the claim should not survive against these defendants because the basis of his complaint for intentional infliction of emotional distress is that the officers acted outside the scope of their employment by disregarding the specific directives of their superior, for which they were later reprimanded. Appellee’s Brief at 5-7. Thus, I would hold that the City and Chief Leonard cannot be held vicariously liable for the officers’ intentional violation of Chief Leonard’s specific instruction, which was necessarily outside the bounds of their employment.
In sum, I would affirm the trial court’s denial of the motion to dismiss as to the officers and reverse its denial of the motion as to the City and Chief Leonard.

. Indiana case law has consistently held that a private duty arises when the relationship between the parties creates a duty owed to a particular individual and not to the public at large. See e.g., Greathouse v. Armstrong, 616 N.E.2d 364, 368 (Ind.1993); Aldridge v. Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources, 694 N.E.2d 313, 316 (Ind.Ct.App.1998), trans. denied; Simpson’s Food Fair, Inc. v. City of Evansville, 149 Ind.App. 387, 391, 272 N.E.2d 871, 874 (1971). Thus, a governmental entity's affirmative act in relation to a particular individual may give rise to a private duty to that individual. Henshilwood v. Hendricks County, 653 N.E.2d 1062, 1068 (Ind.Ct.App.1995), trans. denied.

. Had Chief Leonard not given such an instruction, I would hold that the officers could hide behind their public duty and, thus, the immunity provided under the Act.