ILNews

Opinion invites high court to reconsider decision

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals invited the Indiana Supreme Court to revisit its ruling that held only children born alive fall under Indiana's Child Wrongful Death Statute. In a decision today, the majority of the appellate court panel felt bound by the high court's previous ruling.

At issue in Savannah Linley Ann Nelson Ramirez, An Individual Under the Child Wrongful Death Act, By Her Father, Stephan Ramirez v. James A. Wilson and Suzy-Q Trucking, LLC, No. 56A04-0806-CV-356, is whether a 9-month-old fetus should be considered a child under the statute. The mother of Savannah died in a car accident as a result of a car accident with James Wilson. The baby died in utero.

Ramirez filed a complaint under the statute alleging Wilson's negligence caused his daughter's death. The trial court granted Wilson's motion for partial summary judgment because the statute isn't applicable because Savannah wasn't born alive. The trial court ruled it was bound to grant the partial summary judgment by the Supreme Court's decision in Bolin v. Wingert, 764 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2002).

Ramirez argues on appeal that a full-term and viable fetus should be considered a child under the Child Wrongful Death Statute. But in Bolin, the high court ruled a 10-week-old fetus didn't constitute a child under the statute and that the legislature only intended for babies born alive to be covered.

Even though the circumstances between Bolin and the instance case are different, Judges L. Mark Bailey and Cale Bradford affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment, citing the precedent set by the Supreme Court in Bolin. However, the majority urged the high court to reconsider the scope of their earlier ruling based on the circumstances of this case that perhaps Savannah could have lived had there been a prompt Cesarean section performed, wrote Judge Bailey.

But Judge Patricia Riley dissented, writing that exceptions can be made to stare decisis, such as when the reasoning of a precedent is patently flawed.

"In my opinion, Bolin represents a fallacy and no longer has any contemporary relevance. Judicial honesty dictates corrective action," she wrote.

Citing two cases decided by the Supreme Court on the issue of unborn children's rights, Judge Riley wrote Indiana courts were focused on protecting the rights of the unborn until the Bolin decision came in 2002. The judge also cited Horn v. Hendrickson, 824 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), in which the appellate court affirmed a mother couldn't file suit under the statute following the death of her six-month-old fetus after a car accident. That ruling also invited the high court to reconsider the Bolin opinion.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT