Jason and Justina Kramer v. Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Fort Wayne-South Bend, Inc.
2015 Ind. LEXIS 467
| Ind. | 2015Background
- Catholic Charities matched the Kramers with birth mother M.S., who gave birth to E. and signed adoption paperwork; the Kramers had custody for ~8 months before biological father R.M. was determined and obtained custody.
- Indiana law maintains a putative father registry; adoption agencies must request a registry check at least one day after the close of the 30-day post-birth registration deadline but may check earlier.
- Catholic Charities complied with the statute by requesting a registry check on the 31st day; it had an unwritten practice of additional pre-placement checks but did not disclose that practice to the Kramers.
- The first registry query (May 25) returned no match; a second query (June 1) revealed R.M. had registered on April 27 (prior to birth); reason for the first missed hit is unexplained.
- The Kramers sued Catholic Charities for negligence, alleging it should have checked the registry before placement or at least disclosed that it had not done so; trial court granted summary judgment for Catholic Charities; Court of Appeals reversed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Catholic Charities owed a duty beyond statutory registry checks | Kramer: agency had informal practice to check earlier and thus owed duty to check pre-placement | Catholic Charities: complied with statutory requirement; no higher duty shown | No duty in excess of statute; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether internal/unwritten practices can establish a legal standard of care | Kramer: informal practice implies higher standard and non-disclosure breached duty | Catholic Charities: internal practice alone is insufficient to create legal duty | Internal practice alone insufficient to impose higher legal duty |
| Whether Catholic Charities had a duty to disclose failure to perform pre-placement check | Kramer: as agent it should have disclosed noncompliance with its practice | Catholic Charities: disclosure duty limited by contract terms and statutory framework | No fiduciary/disclosure duty shown under the agreement and law |
| Whether compliance with statute conclusively establishes absence of negligence | Kramer: statutory compliance is not conclusive on due care | Catholic Charities: compliance is prima facie evidence and shifts burden to Kramer to show higher duty | Statutory compliance is prima facie proof of meeting duty; plaintiffs failed to show higher duty |
Key Cases Cited
- Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co. v. Sell, 597 N.E.2d 329 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (compliance with statute is evidence of due care but not always conclusive)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wright, 774 N.E.2d 891 (Ind. 2002) (internal company practices alone may not establish the legal standard of care)
- Estate of Heck ex rel. Heck v. Stoffer, 786 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. 2003) (framework for deciding whether a duty exists: relationship, foreseeability, public policy)
- Yost v. Wabash Coll., 3 N.E.3d 509 (Ind. 2014) (summary judgment appropriate where record insufficient to establish duty)
- Creech v. Se. Ind. R.E.M.C., Inc., 469 N.E.2d 1237 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (compliance with regulations can negate inference of negligence)
- Randall v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co., 800 N.E.2d 951 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (statutory compliance can support summary judgment when plaintiff designates no contrary evidence)