ILNews

First impression issue on 'in loco parentis' doctrine

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Until Friday, Indiana courts had never specifically addressed the application of the in loco parentis doctrine in the context of a private club sport that isn’t affiliated with a school. The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed the issue in a lawsuit against a private club volleyball coach and the volleyball club following the injury of a minor player while on private property.

In Kevin A. Griffin and Maureen O. Griffin, et al. v. George E. Simpson, Team Indiana Volleyball, Inc., et al., No. 18A02-1009-CT-1064, parents Kevin and Maureen Griffin sued the grandparents of one of their daughter’s teammates, the teammate’s mother, the daughter’s volleyball coach, and the private volleyball club after their daughter B.G. was injured falling off a golf cart. During a long break between matches in Muncie, B.G., some other teammates, and coach Becky Murray, went to the home of George and Sharon Simpson to pass time before the next match. B.G. went to the home after being invited by her teammate’s mother while B.G.’s father drove back to Indianapolis to watch another child’s sporting event.  

Murray, who was pregnant at the time, went upstairs in the Simpsons’ home to nap while some of the players rode around in a golf cart on the Simpsons’ property. Despite warnings of only allowing the Simpson’s granddaughter to drive and to not drive up a certain hill, three girls went where they weren’t supposed to go, and B.G. flew out of the cart in an accident and was injured.

The trial court granted Team Indiana Volleyball and Murray’s motion for summary judgment, that as a matter of law, Murray owed no duty to B.G. while the team was on break.

The appellate court examined the in loco parentis doctrine with respect to Murray, and held it didn’t apply to her under the facts of this case. B.G.’s father gave permission for B.G. to attend after the teammate’s mother invited her. There’s no evidence that B.G.’s father even knew whether Murray would be there or supervising the girls, as she had originally planned on staying at the tournament to watch matches before feeling ill. Because of this, Kevin Griffin couldn’t have entrusted B.G. to Murray’s care during the break between tournament sessions, and Murray didn’t demonstrate any intent to assume parental status or undertake an affirmative duty regarding B.G. during the break, wrote Judge Terry Crone.

The Griffins also asserted that Murray gratuitously assumed a duty to supervise the players by giving them instructions regarding which activities were permissible at the Simpsons’ home during their break. But it was the Simpsons, as the property owners, and the two other parents as the organizers of the impromptu visit to the Simpsons’ home, who were responsible to instruct and supervise the girls during their outdoor activities, wrote the judge.

“In sum, the impromptu gathering was not a ‘team event,’ and Coach Murray was merely a guest whose attendance was due to a last-minute change of plans when she was presented with an invitation that included the opportunity to nap,” he wrote. “As such, she no more deliberately and specifically assumed a duty to supervise B.G.’s golf-carting activity at Mr. and Mrs. Simpson’s house than she would deliberately or specifically have assumed the obligation to dress a player in warm clothes during winter or put her to bed early on the night before a match.”

The judges also held because Murray didn’t commit the tort of negligent supervision, then respondeat superior cannot apply against Team Indiana Volleyball.
 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT