## Facts

- Westminster Presbyterian Church in Muncie, Indiana, employed a senior pastor and an associate pastor; the plaintiffs were members who attended the church’s regular services.
- In late 2009, the plaintiffs’ infant son, Matthew, was born; due to flu concerns, the father and child generally stayed home from church.
- In early January 2010, the mother needed childcare to begin a new job and asked a fellow church member for babysitter suggestions.
- The church member contacted the associate pastor, who recommended Tina Byrd; the church member also suggested Byrd.
- About two months earlier, an infant had died of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) while in Byrd’s care; neither the church member nor the associate pastor told the parents about that prior death.
- The parents hired Byrd; less than a month later, Matthew died of SUID while in Byrd’s care.
- After the death, the church issued a press release and held a press conference that identified the family and Matthew by name; the parents alleged this publicity caused additional emotional harm.

## Issues

1. Whether the church owed a duty of care under Indiana negligence law when an associate pastor informally recommended a babysitter to parishioners without disclosing a prior infant death in the babysitter’s care.
2. Whether the church’s press release and press conference naming the family and child constituted an actionable invasion of privacy under Indiana law.
3. Whether the church’s conduct related to the publicity was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Decision

- The court reversed the denial of summary judgment on wrongful death (negligence) and invasion of privacy and remanded with instructions to enter summary judgment for the church on those claims.
- The court affirmed summary judgment for the church on IIED.
- The result required summary judgment for the church on all claims.

## Legal Principles

- Indiana negligence liability requires a legal duty; duty is analyzed by balancing (1) the parties’ relationship, (2) foreseeability of harm, and (3) public policy.
- A church–parishioner relationship and informal pastoral advice, without more, does not necessarily create a legal duty for injuries occurring in a third party’s home after a personal recommendation.
- Foreseeability and public policy may weigh against imposing a duty where doing so would substantially expand liability for informal, non-custodial recommendations.
- Invasion of privacy claims require proof fitting a recognized privacy tort; naming a family in public statements is not intrusion upon seclusion absent an interference with private physical solitude or similar invasion.
- Appropriation requires use of a person’s name or likeness for commercial advantage; informational or institutional statements without commercial exploitation do not satisfy that element.
- IIED requires conduct so extreme and outrageous as to exceed all bounds of decency; upsetting or insensitive publicity, without more, is insufficient as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the church had no negligence duty arising from an associate pastor’s informal babysitter recommendation, that the church’s public identification of the grieving family did not meet Indiana privacy-tort requirements, and that the conduct did not reach the “extreme and outrageous” threshold for IIED; therefore, summary judgment was required for the church on all claims.


Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie, Inc. v. Cheng, 992 N.E.2d 859 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)