Jason and Justina Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc.
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 128
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- In March 2010 M.S. sought Catholic Charities' help for an adoption of her unborn child.
- Catholic Charities facilitated a meeting with Jason and Justina Kramer, who later agreed to adopt E.
- On May 2, the Kramers signed an Acknowledgement of At-Risk Placement releasing Catholic Charities from guarantees and informing of potential termination.
- On May 11 a second Acknowledgement of Temporary At-Risk Placement was signed with a 30-day petition deadline; the Kramers later learned of a putative father registry discrepancy.
- The putative father registry revealed RM registered as E.'s putative father in June; RM contested the adoption and later obtained custody.
- The Kramers sued Catholic Charities in April 2015 for negligence; Catholic Charities won summary judgment; this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do releases bar negligence claims? | Kramers argue releases do not cover negligence. | Catholic Charities argues an inherent-risk/latent-danger exception may apply. | No; releases do not bar negligence claims here. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact on breach of duty? | Catholic Charities breached by not checking registry per policy. | Compliance with statute is not sufficient to preclude negligence; no breach shown. | There is a genuine issue; summary judgment improper on breach. |
| Did Catholic Charities’ actions proximately cause damages? | Failure to check registry timely could have caused damages. | Proximate cause disputed; unknown if earlier check would have changed outcome. | Proximate-cause issue remains for trial; not resolved on summary judgment. |
| Are the claims barred by incurred-risk doctrine? | Kramers argue incurred risk not applicable to agency's negligence. | Incurred risk doctrine barring theory should apply. | Waived on appeal; not addressed below. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stowers v. Clinton Central School Corp., 855 N.E.2d 739 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (exculpatory clause must explicitly refer to negligence to bar liability)
- Anderson v. Four Seasons Equestrian Center, 852 N.E.2d 576 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (latent-risk/inherent-risk exception to exculpatory clauses)
- Marsh v. Dixon, 707 N.E.2d 998 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (inherent-risk exception requires risk inherent in activity)
- Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Sell, 597 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (statutory compliance evidence but not conclusive for negligence)
- French v. Bristol-Myers Co., 574 N.E.2d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (negligence per se and duty considerations from statutory violations)
- KOA Properties LLC v. Matheison, 984 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (waiver of issues not preserved at trial level)