Ruch v. Smith
Indiana Supreme Court
178 N.E. 3d 300 (2021)
- Written by Brianna Pine, JD
Facts
Melody Ruch (plaintiff) was the mother and legal guardian of K.G., a child born with multiple severe disabilities. Because of her disabilities, K.G. was nonverbal, had limited mobility, and required constant care. She attended New Augusta North Public Academy (defendant), where she received special-needs services, including regular diaper changes. Between October 2015 and January 2016, educational assistant Morgan Smith (defendant) sexually abused K.G. during diaper changes. Following the abuse, K.G. began experiencing sleeplessness, night terrors, and aggression toward caregivers. Ruch noticed these behavioral changes but remained unaware of the cause until April 2018, when Smith confessed. Smith later pleaded guilty to felony child molesting. Ruch sued Smith, the school, and the school district (collectively, the school) (defendants), alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress. Ruch argued that learning of the abuse caused her severe emotional distress, which impaired her ability to care for K.G. The school moved for summary judgment, arguing that Ruch failed to meet the requirements of any of the recognized grounds for recovering damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress under Indiana law. Ruch conceded her claim did not fit within an existing rule but urged the court to adopt a new rule allowing recovery. The trial court granted summary judgment for the school. Ruch appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Goff, 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.

