ILNews

Couple not negligent in baby's death

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A couple did not breach their duty to protect a baby from a dangerous condition on their property in which a 2-month-old died after his mother smothered him while the two slept on a sofa at the couple's home. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed judgment as a matter of law in favor of the couple, ruling the parents of the infant had the duty to protect the child.

In Alisha Harradon and William Kenneth Jones Jr., individually and as parents of William Kenneth Jones III, deceased v. Keith and Kathy Schlamadinger, No. 75A03-0903-CV-114, 17-year-old parents Alisha Harradon and William Kenneth Jones Jr. claimed William's aunt and uncle, the Schlamadingers, were negligent and owed a reasonable care of duty to their son. William III died after Alisha decided to sleep on the Schlamadingers' sofa with the infant. The baby suffocated and died.

The parents filed a wrongful death complaint alleging the Schlamadingers' negligent failure to provide appropriate sleeping accommodations was the proximate cause of the baby's death. Kathy told the couple they could sleep in a spare bedroom or on the sofa or loveseat in the living room. Alisha chose to sleep on the couch with the baby, even though William wasn't comfortable with this sleeping arrangement.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the aunt and uncle, ruling the infant's parents exercised total parental control over the baby and had a duty at all times to provide for his safety. The Court of Appeals agreed.

The appellate court took into consideration that the three were invitees on the Schlamadingers' property, that the infant was entirely dependant on his parents for his care, and that even though the parents were minors, they were charged with exercising the standard of care of adults.

"This is especially so because Parents had engaged in the adult activities of conceiving the child at issue and had exclusively cared for the child from its birth until its death," wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

The parents exclusively cared for the baby on the night of his death and the baby was never in Kathy's care. Public policy and common sense dictate that the duty to provide for a child's safety will usually rest with the child's parents while the child is in the parents' presence, he continued.

The Court of Appeals also rejected the parents' claim that the Schlamadingers owed a duty to the baby to exercise reasonable care to protect him from a condition on their property - the sofa. The sofa is a common household item that generally doesn't present an unreasonable risk of harm to a baby, wrote Judge Mathias, and the sofa wasn't a dangerous condition on their property within the meaning of Section 343 of Restatement (Second) of Torts.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT