Rucker, J.
While on duty a security guard shot and severely injured a person with whom he was romantically involved. The injured party filed a complaint against the security guard’s employer under the theory of respondeat superior. The trial court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgment. Concluding there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary disposition, we reverse the trial court’s judgment.
….
In this case Knighten’s negligence claim against Davis Security is premised on the doctrine of respondeat superior, under which an employer who is not liable because of its own acts can be held liable “for the wrongful acts of [its] employee which are committed within the scope of employment.” Sword v. NKC Hosps., Inc., 714 N.E.2d 142, 148 (Ind. 1999) (quoting Stropes v. Heritage House Childrens Ctr., 547 N.E.2d 244, 247 (Ind. 1989))….
….
We first observe there is some tension—if not outright conflict—between Davis Security’s assertion that “Caldwell’s duties . . . included traffic control” and its assertion, as well as Caldwell’s representation, that Caldwell was “only permitted to monitor traffic.”….
….
In the end, the scope and extent of Caldwell’s duties and responsibilities as an employee of Davis Security, and whether in discharging his weapon Caldwell engaged in conduct consistent with his duties and responsibilities, and thus whether this act was done “to an appreciable extent, to further his employer’s business[,]” Bushong v. Williamson, 790 N.E.2d 467, 473 (Ind. 2003) (quoting Celebration Fireworks, 727 N.E.2d at 453), are matters that cannot be resolved by summary disposition. In fact “[i]t is well established that whether an employee’s actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact to be determined by the factfinder.” Walgreen Co. v. Hinchy, 21 N.E.3d 99, 107 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (citing Trinity Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Miller, 451 N.E.2d 1099, 1102 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)).
Conclusion
We reverse that portion of the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Davis Security based on Knighten’s respondeat superior claim. This cause is remanded for further proceedings.
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, David and Massa, JJ., concur.