Residents of southern Indiana, including those in New Albany, Jeffersonville, Clarksville, and surrounding areas in Floyd and Clark Counties, often rely on property management services and other employers to ensure safety and security in their homes and workplaces. However, when an employee’s intentional misconduct causes harm, victims may have recourse against the employer through claims such as negligent hiring. The recent Indiana Court of Appeals decision in Gue v. Triple E Property Management, LLC (February 27, 2026) provides valuable guidance on this topic. As an experienced personal injury attorney based in New Albany, I regularly assist clients in navigating these complex issues. This post offers an overview of the case and its implications; it is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For personalized counsel, please contact my office.
Overview of the Gue Case
In Gue, tenant Krista B. Gue reported water-related maintenance issues at her Indianapolis rental property, including basement flooding and leaks. The property manager dispatched an employee, Carlos Bernal Gomez, to address the problems. Gue permitted entry based on prior familiarity and left the premises shortly thereafter.
Surveillance footage later revealed the employee’s unauthorized actions: He entered Gue’s bedroom, searched through her belongings, and engaged in inappropriate conduct involving her personal items. Upon viewing the footage remotely, Gue instructed the employee to leave and contacted law enforcement. The incident resulted in significant emotional distress, prompting her to vacate the property and leading to ongoing anxiety, including fears of surveillance.
Gue filed suit against the property manager and landlord, alleging vicarious liability for the employee’s intentional torts—invasion of privacy by intrusion and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED)—as well as negligent hiring, retention, and supervision against the property manager. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the negligent hiring claim, emphasizing factual disputes regarding the adequacy of the employer’s background screening.
Understanding Negligent Hiring Under Indiana Law
Indiana recognizes negligent hiring, retention, and supervision as a direct claim against an employer for failing to exercise reasonable care in employee selection and oversight, where such failure foreseeably harms a third party. This doctrine, grounded in Section 317 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, is particularly relevant in scenarios involving access to private spaces, such as residential maintenance in southern Indiana’s active rental market.
To establish negligent hiring, a plaintiff must demonstrate:
- Duty of Care: The employer owes a duty to protect foreseeable victims, such as tenants exposed to maintenance personnel.
- Breach: Inadequate screening or supervision, such as incomplete background checks that overlook red flags like criminal history or identity discrepancies.
- Causation and Damages: The breach proximately causes harm, which may include emotional or privacy-related injuries from intentional acts.
In Gue, evidence showed the property manager conducted a limited background check, failing to investigate name variations or a questionable Social Security Number provided by the employee. A more thorough inquiry might have revealed potential criminal records involving domestic violence. The court held that these issues created a genuine dispute as to whether the harm was foreseeable, precluding summary judgment.
Integration of Intentional Torts: Invasion of Privacy and IIED
Negligent hiring claims can encompass damages from an employee’s intentional torts, even if those acts fall outside the scope of employment. In such cases, the intentional misconduct serves as the underlying harm.
- Invasion of Privacy by Intrusion: This tort addresses unreasonable invasions of private solitude, such as unauthorized entry into personal spaces. In Gue, the employee’s actions violated Gue’s privacy, causing mental anguish despite her absence from the scene. Physical harm is not required; the focus is on the offensiveness of the conduct.
- IIED: This requires extreme and outrageous behavior intentionally or recklessly causing severe emotional distress. The court in Gue noted the “egregious” nature of the acts, which led to Gue’s profound and ongoing psychological impact.
Indiana courts emphasize that negligence cases are fact-intensive, often reserving resolution for juries. This ruling underscores the potential for recovery in southern Indiana, where similar service-based interactions are commonplace.
Potential Damages
Successful claims may yield:
- Compensatory Damages: Covering emotional distress (e.g., anxiety, therapy costs), economic losses (e.g., relocation expenses), and other harms.
- Punitive Damages: Available for reckless employer conduct, subject to statutory caps (three times compensatory damages or $50,000, whichever is greater). Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act may adjust awards based on shared responsibility.
Implications for Southern Indiana Residents
With expanding residential and commercial developments in areas like New Albany and Jeffersonville, employer accountability is crucial. The Gue decision reinforces the need for rigorous hiring practices and offers a pathway for victims of employee misconduct.
Contact Us for Assistance
If you have experienced harm due to an employee’s actions and suspect employer negligence, professional guidance is essential. I am Marc Sedwick, founder of SedwickLaw, PC, with over 20 years of experience in personal injury and related matters in Indiana. Contact my office at 877-890-5090 for a complimentary consultation, or visit www.marcsedwick.com. We are located at 229 West Spring Street, New Albany, IN 47150, serving clients throughout southern Indiana.