Also known as: parent child immunity · parental immunity · child-parent immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A common-law doctrine that bars an unemancipated minor from bringing a tort action against a parent for ordinary negligence arising from the exercise of parental authority, supervision, or discretion within the family relationship. The doctrine rests on preserving family harmony and parental autonomy. Modern jurisdictions have largely abolished or sharply limited the doctrine so that the parent-child relationship alone does not create tort immunity.
Portia Price directed her twelve-year-old daughter to operate an old tractor without a roll bar near a steep ditch on the family property. The tractor overturned and injured the child. The daughter, through a guardian, sued Price for negligence in assigning the dangerous task. Because the conduct involved the exercise of parental supervision, the court applied the doctrine and dismissed the suit.
Pierce Patterson, operations manager at a metal shop, disabled a safety guard on a punch press and directed his sixteen-year-old daughter to operate the machine after hours to speed production. The daughter's hand was crushed. She sued Patterson for negligence. The court held that the parent-child relationship alone supplied no immunity and allowed the claim to proceed on ordinary tort principles.
Kimberly Landis and Alva Nelson filed a product liability action on behalf of their minor child, A.N., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia. On February 28, 2010, then seven-year-old A.N. was severely burned while attempting to start a fire in his family’s fireplace at the family residence. A fire had been burning throughout the day. That evening, while A.N.’s mother, father and brother were upstairs, A.N. asked his mother for permission to roast a marshmallow in the fireplace. A.N.’s mother gave him permission and he went downstairs by himself to the fireplace. Believing that the fire had died out, A.N. stacked kindling wood in the fireplace and applied Diamond Fire Starter Gel to the wood. A.N.’s parents left the fire starter gel bottle on a stand next to the fireplace that was within A.N.’s reach. The bottle’s directions for use state that it should be stored away from heat and flame and directs users to “keep out of reach of children.” As A.N. was spraying the gel into the fireplace, it allegedly touched a hot ember causing a flame to “flashback” through the bottle cap igniting the vapors within the bottle. This caused an explosion resulting in A.N. suffering severe burns over sixty-five percent of his body. The plaintiffs asserted product liability causes of action for strict liability, negligence, and breach of warranty against Stull Technologies, Inc., the manufacturer of the bottle cap; CKS Packaging Inc., the manufacturer of the bottle; Packaging Services Company, Inc., the producer of the fire starter gel; Hearthmark, LLC, d/b/a Jarden Home Brands, the distributor of the fire starter gel; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the store where the fire starter gel was purchased. The parents did not assert any causes of action of their own, nor did they seek any damages. Each of the defendants denied the material allegations contained in the complaint and asserted contribution counterclaims and comparative negligence defenses against A.N.’s parents. The defendants also raised the defenses of product misuse and intervening causation due to A.N.’s parents’ conduct. While initially brought as counterclaims, the District Court ordered that the defendants’ claims against A.N.’s parents shall be considered third-party complaints. The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike Defendant Stull’s comparative negligence defense. The District Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion without prejudice and invited the parties to seek certification. After completing some discovery, the District Court certified four questions to this Court.
View caseModern tort law has rejected broad parental immunity. The mere existence of the parent-child relationship does not create a categorical bar to suit. A parent remains subject to ordinary negligence standards unless the specific conduct falls within a limited sphere of protected parental discretion such as reasonable discipline or supervision.
Supporting sources
Immunity survives only in narrow circumstances involving the exercise of parental authority, supervision, or discretion within the family relationship. Courts distinguish these privileged parenting decisions from ordinary negligence that occurs in commercial or non-parental settings.
Supporting sources
When a parent's conduct occurs in a commercial setting and creates hazards tied to business operations rather than core parenting functions, the relationship supplies no immunity. Ordinary negligence standards govern and the claim proceeds.
Supporting sources