The Difference Between “Negligence” and “Gross Negligence” in Indiana Personal Injury Cases

To win a personal injury case in Indiana, or any other state, you need to prove that the defendant was somehow “negligence.” Ordinary negligence means the defendant violated some duty of care owed to the plaintiff by law. A simple example would be a driver who runs a stop sign and causes an accident in an intersection. The driver was negligent as they violated a duty of care to obey the traffic laws and drive in a reasonably safe manner.

There are also personal injury cases where a plaintiff alleges “gross negligence.” Indiana courts have defined gross negligence to mean a “conscious, voluntary act or omission in reckless disregard of … the consequences to another party.” Running a stop sign because you were distracted momentarily is not gross negligence. But if a driver is speeding 30 miles per hour over the speed limit through an intersection, that could qualify as gross negligence. Similarly, driving drunk is often considered gross negligence.

Judge Allows Catastrophic Truck Accident Victim to Pursue Punitive Damages Claim Against Truck Driver, Trucking Company

So why does it matter if a defendant’s actions constitute gross negligence as opposed to ordinary negligence? One reason is that if a plaintiff can prove gross negligence, they can often seek punitive damages under Indiana law. Unlike compensatory damages, which focus on the losses suffered directly by the plaintiff, punitive damages are a form of civil punishment designed to “send a message” that certain types of conduct, such as gross negligence, are unacceptable in a civilized society.

A pending personal injury case in Indiana, Evans v. Greenwood Motor Lines, Inc., illustrates how these legal definitions can matter. This case arose from a catastrophic commercial truck accident. The plaintiff was working for his employer on a power line in a rural residential neighborhood. A commercial semi-truck struck the power line and caused the plaintiff to fall 20 feet to the ground, where he was subsequently exposed to the still-active electrical lines. The truck driver left the scene without stopping.

The plaintiff suffered permanent injuries as a result of this accident. He subsequently sued the driver of the semi-truck as well as the driver’s employer. The lawsuit alleged “gross negligence” on the part of all defendants and seeks punitive damages.

In a September 2025 order, United States District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt denied a defense motion to dismiss the gross negligence and punitive damages claims. She held the plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to support a gross negligence claim under Indiana law. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged the trucking company “neglected to eliminate risks associated with unsafe drivers” and “protect the members of the public, such as [the plaintiff], from known risks.”

Judge Pratt further said the plaintiff stated a viable claim for punitive damages against both the driver as well as the employer. With respect to the latter, she noted that employers can be held accountable for punitive damages for their “negligent hiring” practices. They cannot, however, be held liable for such damages simply because their employee caused an accident through gross negligence.

Contact a Madisonville Truck Accident Lawyer Today

An accident involving a semi-truck can leave victims with permanent injuries that will require a lifetime of care and support. Our Madisonville truck accident lawyers are dedicated to helping these victims and the families secure fair compensation for these life-altering events. Contact Whitfield Crosby & Flynn today to schedule a free consultation. We have offices in Madisonville, Kentucky; Chattanooga, Tennessee; and Indianapolis, Indiana.

Source:

scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3210118952243363886