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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?