Under Indiana’s “going-and-coming” rule, an employee driving to and from work is generally not acting within the scope of his employment, in which case the employer is not vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence under principles of respondeat superior. An exception to this rule arises if the employee is performing work assigned by the employer or is subject to the employer’s control.
Civil
Indiana Dept. of Educ. v. Mt. Zion’s Loving Day Care Ministry, et. al., No. 26S-PL-134, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Oct. 26, 2026).
The Department of Education’s blanket policy of rejecting correction proposals by CACFP participants once a deficiency recurs, despite its authority to exercise such discretion under federal law, was arbitrary and capricious.
C.J.W. v. T.H., No. 26A-AD-1225, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Oct. 16, 2026).
A Level 5 criminal recklessness conviction did not bar the stepfather from adoption because the court ruled on the adoption petition after the five-year period had expired. This court found that the time period noted in the statute “refers to the date the court rules on the petition, not the filing date” of the petition.
Leonard v. State, No. 26A-IF-365, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sep. 16, 2026).
Squealing tires while departing from a traffic light, standing alone, does not prove that a driver committed the civil infraction of unsafe start.
Harrison County Parks & Rec. v. David Hussung, No. 26A-EX-780, __ N.E.3d __ (Ind. Ct. App., Sept. 4, 2026).
This is the first Indiana case to apply the “moving vehicle” rule set forth in Kovatch, which stated that if an employee is injured “the effects of such a fall are compensable if the employment places the employee in a position increasing the dangerous effects of such a fall, such as on a height, near machinery or sharp corners, or in a moving vehicle.”