Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie v. Yonghong Cheng
992 N.E.2d 859
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- The Chengs (parents) hired Tina Byrd, a Westminster congregant, to babysit their four-month-old son Matthew; Byrd had previously been the caregiver for another infant who died from SUID months earlier.
- Byrd babysat Matthew; on January 19 she left him asleep at home to run errands and returned to find him dead; autopsy ruled cause as Sudden Unexplained Infant Death (SUID), manner undetermined.
- The baby’s earlier death while in Byrd’s care was known in the Westminster community; Byrd was later convicted of obstruction for lying to police about the later incident.
- An associate pastor (Holroyd) had provided Byrd’s name to a church member who was helping the Chengs find childcare; childcare was not a church ministry.
- Westminster (Pastor Cox) issued a press release naming the Chengs and describing the circumstances; the Chengs sued Westminster for wrongful death, invasion of privacy (intrusion on seclusion and appropriation), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- The trial court denied summary judgment on wrongful death and privacy claims but granted it for IIED; the appellate court reviews and resolves all three claims on summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty in negligence/wrongful death | Holroyd’s recommendation created a pastor–parishioner or special relationship imposing a duty to warn about Byrd’s prior infant death | No special relationship; a mere, informal recommendation does not create a legal duty to insure babysitter safety | No duty as a matter of law; summary judgment for Westminster on wrongful death |
| Foreseeability of harm | Prior infant death by Byrd made Matthew’s death foreseeable | Prior death was SUID (undetermined); future death was not reasonably foreseeable | Harm not reasonably foreseeable; supports no duty finding |
| Intrusion upon seclusion (privacy) | Press release and press conference intruded on family’s solitude and emotional privacy | Intrusion tort requires physical invasion of private space; press statement did not invade physical seclusion | No intrusion as a matter of law; summary judgment for Westminster |
| Appropriation of name or likeness (privacy) | Publishing Chengs’ names in press release appropriated their identity for Westminster’s benefit | Use was incidental and not for commercial or other benefit; naming identified parties in a newsworthy event | Use was incidental and not for defendant’s benefit; summary judgment for Westminster |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Public deception and abandonment after public statements were extreme/outrageous and intended to harm the Chengs | No intent to cause emotional harm; conduct not extreme or outrageous as law requires | IIED claim fails; summary judgment for Westminster was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Webb v. Jarvis, 575 N.E.2d 992 (Ind. 1991) (sets the three-factor duty-balancing test)
- Cullison v. Medley, 570 N.E.2d 27 (Ind. 1991) (defines IIED and intrusion on seclusion elements)
- Felsher v. Univ. of Evansville, 755 N.E.2d 589 (Ind. 2001) (discusses appropriation and Restatement §652 principles)
- Passmore v. Multi-Management Servs., Inc., 810 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. 2004) (reluctance to impose negligence liability for routine references/recommendations)
- Leever v. Leever, 919 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (discusses pastor–parishioner fiduciary/confidential relationship)
- J.A.W. v. Roberts, 627 N.E.2d 802 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (status alone does not create a special relationship)
- Bradley v. Hall, 720 N.E.2d 747 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (describes extreme/outrageous conduct standard for IIED)