Massa, J.
More than forty years ago, our Court of Appeals decided Tindall v. Enderle, 162 Ind. App. 524, 320 N.E.2d 764 (1974), and today we reaffirm its holding. When an employer admits that an employee was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, the employer may only be held liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and thus the plaintiff is precluded from also bringing a negligent hiring claim in most circumstances. We therefore affirm the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment for Pizza Hut, allowing only the negligence claim under the doctrine of respondeat superior to proceed.
….
Respondeat Superior and Negligent Hiring, Training, and/or Supervision Claims May Not Be Simultaneously Brought When an Employer Admits That an Employee Was Acting Within the Course and Scope of His or Her Employment.
Resolution of this case hinges on our interpretation of the precedential effect of two opinions: Tindall and Broadstreet.
….
Second, starting with Tindall, there is a line of Indiana precedent spanning nearly five decades holding that an employer’s admission that an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment precludes negligent hiring claims. [Footnote omitted.] This outcome recognizes that a respondeat superior claim necessarily involves an act within the scope of employment, whereas negligent hiring claims require an act outside the scope of employment. Under each claim, the plaintiff seeks the same result—employer liability—and recovery is based on the same negligent act—the employee’s. Tindall, 162 Ind. App. at 530, 320 N.E.2d at 768 (“Proof of negligence by the employee on the particular occasion at issue is a common element to the theories of respondeat superior and negligent hiring.”). To allow both claims would serve only to prejudice the employer, confuse the jury, and waste judicial resources when ultimately the result—that the employer is liable—is the same and the employer has stipulated as much. Such an admission exposes an employer to liability for any and all fault assessed to the employee’s negligence, and thus a negligent hiring claim becomes duplicative since a plaintiff may not recover twice for the same damage. See INS Investigations Bureau, Inc. v. Lee, 784 N.E.2d 566, 577 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (“The law disfavors . . . double recovery for a single wrong.”), trans. denied.
….
In sum, based on Tindall, substantial precedent has established that when an employer admits that an employee was acting within the course and scope of his or her employment, absent special circumstances, negligent hiring claims are precluded. Neither Broadstreet nor the Restatement (Second) of Torts nor the Comparative Fault Act compel a different result.
Conclusion
For the reasons above, we affirm the trial court’s partial grant of summary judgment for Pizza Hut.
Rush, C.J., and David, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.