Gentry v. Hockett, 49A04-8604-CV-100
| Decision Date | 16 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 49A04-8604-CV-100,49A04-8604-CV-100 |
| Citation | 498 N.E.2d 405 |
| Parties | Gerald GENTRY, Appellant (Plaintiff Below), v. David Michael HOCKETT and Chester Goins, Individually, and David Michael Hockett and Auto Dealers Exchange, Appellees (Defendants Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
John F. Townsend, Jr., Townsend, Hovde & Montross, Indianapolis, for appellant.
James A. Goodin, Goodin & Kraege, Indianapolis, for appellees.
Gerald Gentry appeals a grant of summary judgment in favor of Auto Dealers Exchange and its owners. The only issue presented for review is whether a private employer of an off-duty police officer is vicariously liable for acts committed by the officer in his attempt to apprehend individuals he believed had stolen a car from the employer's premises. We affirm.
Summary judgment is proper if there is no issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 56(C); Lambert v. Stark (1985), Ind.App., 484 N.E.2d 630. In this case, there is no issue as to any material fact, and the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Fred Hartle, an Indianapolis police officer and commander of the department's auto theft detail, was hired as a part-time employee of Auto Dealers Exchange. Hartle's job was to make sure that the numbers on the purchase receipts matched the serial numbers of the vehicles leaving the auction. While performing these duties one evening, Hartle heard someone yell, "They're stealing my car." As Hartle looked up, he saw a Corvette crash through the company's gate. Hartle, who was in plain clothes, jumped into his unmarked police car and began pursuing the Corvette. Hartle, having difficulty keeping up with the Corvette as it reached speeds of seventy-five and eighty miles an hour, called the police dispatcher for assistance. He also turned on his red lights and siren. About a mile or two later, the Corvette ran a red light and struck Gentry's vehicle. The drivers of other vehicles, apparently hearing Hartle's siren, had not proceeded into the intersection. Gentry sustained serious injuries due to the collision.
Gentry claims that Auto Dealers Exchange is vicariously liable for Hartle's actions as Hartle was an agent of the Exchange at the time the collision occurred. We disagree. "[I]t is the nature of the acts performed and not whether the officer was on or off duty, in or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lovelace v. Anderson
...or is the type of act which police officers perform. See McWain v. Greyhound Lines, 357 So.2d 780 (Fla.App.1978); Gentry v. Auto Dealers Exchange, 498 N.E.2d 405 (Ind.App.1986); Neallus v. Hutchinson Amusement Co., 126 Me. 469, 470-471, 139 A. 671, 672 (1927); Graalum v. Radisson Ramp, Inc.......
-
City of Alexandria v. JW ENTERPRISES, INC., Record No. 090659.
...duties, not at the direction of the private master,' the employer will not be held liable.") (citation omitted); Gentry v. Hockett, 498 N.E.2d 405, 406 (Ind.Ct.App.1986) ("`It is the nature of the acts performed and not whether the officer was on or off duty, in or out of uniform, which det......
-
City of India v. West
...a private car auction acted within the scope of his public employment when chasing a car thief from the auction. Gentry v. Hockett, 498 N.E.2d 405, 406 (Ind. Ct. App. 1986) (citing Sports, Inc. v. Gilbert, 431 N.E.2d 534, 539 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) ("The employer does not ‘rent’ the state's p......
-
Sports Bench, Inc. v. McPherson
...duties does not depend upon whether he is on or off duty. Nieto v. State (1986), Ind.App., 499 N.E.2d 280; Gentry v. Hockett (1986), Ind.App., 498 N.E.2d 405; Sports, Inc. v. Gilbert (1982), Ind.App., 431 N.E.2d 534, trans. denied. An off-duty officer can be engaged in the performance of hi......
-
Public Liability for Privately Employed Security Personnel
...25; Rojas, supra, note 7. 28. See, Lusby, supra, note 6. 29. Id.; see also, Rojas, supra, note 7. 30. See generally, Gentry v. Hockett, 498 N.E.2d 405 (Ind.App. 1986). 31. See generally, Stengel v. Belcher, 522 F.2d 438 (6th Cir. 1975), cert, dismissed, 429 U.S. 118, 97 S.Ct. 514, 50 L.Ed.2......