ILNews

Pool's owner did not breach any duty owed to boy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the owner of a pool in a lawsuit filed by the father of a young boy who drowned in the pool. The appellate court found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving certain jury instructions.

James Androusky III drowned in Cole Walter’s residential swimming pool. Walter is the former stepfather of the boy’s mother’s boyfriend, Matthew Hollingsworth. The mother, Tammra Androusky, was married to James Androusky II for a period of time and had three children with him. James Androusky II did not pay child support and even attempted to sign away his rights to the children at one point.

Tammra Androusky, Hollingsworth, and her children stayed at Walter’s home over his objections. He did not want them staying there, but allowed them to stay just one night as long as they left after eating breakfast. Walter went to work, but Hollingsworth and the others stayed late in the morning. Two of the boys were allowed to play outside unsupervised near the pool. When Hollingsworth and Tammra Androusky discovered James Androusky III was missing, they found him at the bottom of the pool.

James Androusky II, individually and as a personal representative of his son’s estate, filed a wrongful death action against Walter. The jury ruled in favor of Walter, leading James Androusky II to appeal, claiming the trial court abused its discretion by instructing the jury to determine whether the boy was an invitee or licensee; by instructing the jury regarding abandonment under the Child Wrongful Death Act; by instructing regarding a state administrative pool safety regulation; and whether the trial court properly instructed on the effect of a parent’s failure to supervise his or her child around a known and obvious condition upon the land.

The evidence at trial shows the boy and his family were licensees and not social guests or invitees. There was also evidence introduced to show that James Androusky II rarely saw his son and provided little to no financial support. He even filed with the court a document to attempt to terminate his parental rights for the exchange of the non-enforcement of his child support obligation. Under the Child Wrongful Death Act, a parent who abandoned a deceased child while the child was alive is not entitled to recovery under the act.

The trial court didn’t err in giving the instruction on the administrative pool safety regulation in place at the time of the boy’s death. James Androusky II argued that the regulation required that the fencing outlined in the regulation was to be immediately around the pool, not just the yard. But a plain reading of the regulation doesn’t support that interpretation, wrote Judge Ezra Friedlander in James Androusky, II, Individually and as Personal Rep. of the Estate of James Androusky, III, Deceased v. Cole A. Walter and Tammra Androusky, No. 83A01-1103-CT-137.

Finally, James Androusky II’s complaint with respect to the instruction on parental supervision turns on the perceived unfairness in depriving him of recovery for the death of his son due to the negligence of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. His argument is misguided, Friedlander wrote, because it is focused entirely on his right to recover damages and ignores the fact that Walter’s negligence must first be established. Walter did not owe a duty to the boy and the sole proximate cause of the boy’s death was the mother’s lack of supervision.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The is an unsigned editorial masquerading as a news story. Almost everyone quoted was biased in favor of letting all illegal immigrants remain in the U.S. (Ignoring that Obama deported 3.5 million in 8 years). For some reason Obama enforcing part of the immigration laws was O.K. but Trump enforcing additional parts is terrible. I have listed to press conferences and explanations of the Homeland Security memos and I gather from them that less than 1 million will be targeted for deportation, the "dreamers" will be left alone and illegals arriving in the last two years -- especially those arriving very recently -- will be subject to deportation but after the criminals. This will not substantially affect the GDP negatively, especially as it will take place over a number of years. I personally think this is a rational approach to the illegal immigration problem. It may cause Congress to finally pass new immigration laws rationalizing the whole immigration situation.

  2. Mr. Straw, I hope you prevail in the fight. Please show us fellow American's that there is a way to fight the corrupted justice system and make them an example that you and others will not be treated unfairly. I hope you the best and good luck....

  3. @ President Snow - Nah, why try to fix something that ain't broken??? You do make an excellent point. I am sure some Mickey or Minnie Mouse will take Ruckers seat, I wonder how his retirement planning is coming along???

  4. Can someone please explain why Judge Barnes, Judge Mathias and Chief Judge Vaidik thought it was OK to re weigh the evidence blatantly knowing that by doing so was against the rules and went ahead and voted in favor of the father? I would love to ask them WHY??? I would also like to ask the three Supreme Justices why they thought it was OK too.

  5. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

ADVERTISEMENT