Seymour Nat. Bank v. State, 781S185
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
| Citation | 428 N.E.2d 203 |
| Docket Number | No. 781S185,781S185 |
| Parties | The SEYMOUR NATIONAL BANK, as Guardian for Timothy Clyde O'Sullivan, the Seymour National Bank, as Special Administrator of the Estate of Deborah O'Sullivan, John L. O'Sullivan, Plaintiffs- Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1981 |
Page 203
O'Sullivan, the Seymour National Bank, as Special
Administrator of the Estate of Deborah
O'Sullivan, John L.
O'Sullivan,
Plaintiffs-
Appellants,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Defendant-Appellee.
Kenneth A. Layton, Montgomery, Elsner & Pardieck, Seymour, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Lloyd H. Milliken, Jr., Locke, Reynolds, Boyd & Weisell, Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., G. Richard Potter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Thomas C. Bigley, Jr., Sharpnack, Bigley, David & Rumple, Columbus, for defendant-appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
The case is before us upon the petition of the Plaintiffs (Appellants) for rehearing and Defendant's (Appellee's) response thereto.
Page 204
We now grant the petition for rehearing for the purpose of clarifying our opinion of July 10, 1981 (reported at 422 N.E.2d 1223) and to address three issues presented by Plaintiffs' initial brief, and which were inadvertently omitted from our prior opinion, to-wit:
"2. Whether the existence of liability insurance which provides coverage for the losses claimed by the plaintiffs, constitutes a waiver, to the extent of the limits of insurance coverage, of any immunity granted by IC 34-4-16.5-3(7).
"3. Whether IC 34-4-16.5-3(7) is unconstitutional as violative of Section 12 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution which guarantees all persons a remedy for injuries to their person and property.
"4. Whether IC 34-4-16.5-3(7) is unconstitutional in that it denies the plaintiffs equal protection of the law by granting privileges and immunities prohibited by Section 23 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution."
We continue to reject Petitioners' claims that the Legislature merely codified the case law when it passed Ind.Code 34-4-16.5-3(7). The language of the statute as amended is clear. 1 The State of Indiana and its employees are not liable for losses resulting from the enforcement of or failure to enforce a law, unless such enforcement constitutes false arrest or false imprisonment. It does not follow, however, that the statute necessarily grants immunity for all acts of law enforcement officers committed while engaged in the enforcement of the law. If the injury in question resulted from the enforcement of a law, immunity is granted to both the governmental entity and to the employee, notwithstanding that the enforcement resulted in a loss that would not have occurred but for the negligent manner in which the duty was performed. However, an employee's acts, although committed while engaged in the performance of his duty, might be so outrageous as to be incompatible with the performance of the duty undertaken. In such a case, it cannot be said that an injury resulting therefrom resulted from the performance of the duty. Such acts, whether intentional or willful and wanton, are simply beyond the scope of the employment. 2
Plaintiffs characterize our determination, that the statute is not ambiguous and must be given its plain meaning, as being prejudicial to the public interest in that it immunizes governmental entities and its employees from all liability for all losses that result from any act which can possibly be characterized as enforcement of the law. We cannot agree. Our interpretation does result in the grant of such immunity for losses that result from any act which can properly be characterized as enforcement of the law, but we do not regard this as being against the public interest, and it is clearly a matter that the Legislature may determine. With regard to those acts that are so incompatible with the performance of duty as to be outside the scope of the employment, there is no statutory grant of immunity either to the employee or to the governmental entity, which has no need for it, inasmuch as there is no basis for liability in it.
Page 205
The issue which the trial court faced and which we face in review of Defendant's motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. Sheriff of Marion County, IP97-2013-C-F/D.
...employment, except for false arrest and false imprisonment, Seymour National Bank v. State, 422 N.E.2d 1223, 1226, modified on rehearing, 428 N.E.2d 203 (Ind.1981). In Quakenbush, the Court adopted the definition of the public-private duty test described by Judge Robertson in his opinion fo......
-
Board of Com'rs of Cass County v. Nevitt
...... E.g., Thill, supra. . This state, however, has adopted a less restrictive view. ... Seymour v. Union News Co., (7th Cir.1954) 217 F.2d 168; Hockett v. ... They cite Seymour National Bank v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 203, which held that a ... Geiger & Peters v. American Fletcher Nat'l Bank & Trust Co., (1981) Ind.App., 428 N.E.2d 1279. . 4 ......
-
Quakenbush v. Lackey, 49S04-9310-CV-1159
...Ind., 582 N.E.2d 796, and overrule our earlier decision in Seymour Nat'l. Bank v. State (1981), Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1223, modified on reh'g 428 N.E.2d 203. Tricia B. Quakenbush, Samuel McAfee, Mac Medlin, and Larry Allen (Plaintiffs-Appellants below) seek transfer after the Court of Appeals af......
-
Riggin v. Board of Trustees of Ball State University, 1-1084A240
...an administrative proceeding. However, Riggin relies on Seymour National Bank v. State (1981), Ind., 422 N.E.2d 1223, on rehearing, 428 N.E.2d 203, cert. dismissed (1982), 457 U.S. 1127, 102 S.Ct. 2951, 73 L.Ed.2d 1344. That case granted immunity to the State and its police officers in a su......