## Facts

- Eric Swanson, a Wabash College freshman, attended a meeting and joined informal fall baseball practices announced in a student circular.
- A varsity player, Dan Taylor, conceived and organized the fall practices with other players; Wabash had no prior fall baseball program.
- The varsity coach, Mike Deal, said he could not participate and that the players were “on their own,” though he allowed use of some team equipment.
- Taylor obtained money from the Dean of Men to purchase baseballs for the practices.
- Practices took place at a city-owned park while the college field was used for football.
- During an outfield drill, Swanson acted as a cutoff man while watching an incoming throw; Taylor continued hitting balls and struck Swanson in the eye, causing serious injury.
- Swanson sued Wabash for negligence, asserting the college had a duty to supervise and was vicariously liable because Taylor acted as its agent.

## Issues

1. Whether Wabash College owed a duty to supervise the informal, student-organized fall baseball practices.
2. Whether Taylor acted as Wabash’s actual or implied agent so that his alleged negligence could be imputed to the college.
3. Whether summary judgment for Wabash was proper given the undisputed facts about the college’s involvement.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for Wabash College.
- The court held Wabash owed no duty to supervise the unofficial fall practices.
- The court held Taylor was not Wabash’s agent for purposes of imposing vicarious liability.
- With duty and agency absent as a matter of law on undisputed facts, Wabash was entitled to judgment.

## Legal Principles

- A negligence claim requires a legal duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff; absent a duty to supervise an activity, the defendant is not liable for injuries arising from that activity.
- A college’s limited assistance or permission (e.g., allowing equipment use or providing small funds) does not, without more, convert a student-run activity into an institutionally supervised program creating a duty of supervision.
- Vicarious liability based on agency requires evidence that the purported principal authorized the agent to act on its behalf and/or exercised control over the manner and means of the agent’s conduct.
- A participant’s status as a varsity athlete, and a student organizer’s intent to report talent to a coach, do not establish actual or apparent authority without institutional authorization or control.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when material facts are undisputed and the dispositive elements (such as duty or agency) fail as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

Because the fall practices were independently organized and conducted by students, and Wabash neither undertook supervision nor authorized or controlled Taylor as its agent, the college had no duty to supervise and no vicarious liability for Swanson’s injury; summary judgment for Wabash was properly affirmed.


Swanson v. Wabash Coll., 504 N.E.2d 327 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987)