Westminster Presbyterian Church of Muncie v. Yonghong Cheng
Indiana Court of Appeals
992 N.E.2d 859 (2013)
- Written by Kelly Nielsen
Facts
Yonghong Cheng and Hongjun Niu (June) (collectively, the Chengs) (plaintiffs) had a four-month-old son, Matthew. The Chengs attended Westminster Presbyterian Church (Westminster) (defendant). June was starting a new job and needed a babysitter for Matthew. June visited a woman from her Westminster bible study group. The woman suggested a babysitter named Tina Byrd (defendant). The woman then called Westminster’s associate pastor for suggestions, and he also suggested Byrd. Neither the woman nor the associate pastor told June that, two months earlier, a baby had died of sudden unexpected infant death (SUID) while in Byrd’s care. The Chengs hired Byrd to babysit Matthew. Less than a month later, Matthew died of SUID while in Byrd’s care. The Chengs sued Byrd and Westminster in Indiana state court for Matthew’s death. Among other claims, the Chengs brought a negligence claim against Westminster, alleging that Westminster’s associate pastor had acted negligently by recommending Byrd to the Chengs and that this negligence had led to Matthew’s death. Westminster moved for summary judgment, arguing that it could not be liable for negligence because it had not owed any legal duty to the Chengs to find them a safe babysitter. The trial court denied the motion. Westminster appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vaidik, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

