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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT