Also known as: parental immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A common-law doctrine that bars an unemancipated minor from suing 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 authority has largely repudiated any blanket bar based solely on the parent-child relationship.
Pamela Phillips directed her twelve-year-old son to drive an old tractor without a roll bar along a steep drainage ditch on the family farm. The tractor overturned and injured the boy. When the son sued through a guardian, the court dismissed the claim because the alleged negligence occurred during the exercise of parental supervision over a child.
Phoenix Technologies manufactured a defective heater that injured a child. The manufacturer sought contribution from the child's parents, alleging they negligently supervised the child near the heater. The court held that parental immunity barred the contribution claim against the parents even though the parents could still be included for fault allocation.
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 authority holds that the mere existence of the parent-child relationship does not create tort immunity. A child may sue a parent for ordinary negligence unless the conduct falls within a limited sphere of protected parental discretion such as reasonable discipline or supervision.
Supporting sources
Immunity continues to protect parents only for conduct that constitutes the exercise of parental authority, supervision, or discretion within the family relationship. It does not shield ordinary negligence that would be actionable if committed by a non-parent.
Supporting sources
Parental immunity precludes a contribution claim against the parents, but the parents may still be included as third-party defendants for purposes of allocating fault among all responsible parties.
Supporting sources