Appelhans v. McFall
757 N.E.2d 987 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Illinois "tender years doctrine," a child under the age of seven is legally incapable of negligence. Parents may only be held liable for negligent supervision if they were aware of specific prior instances of the child's conduct that would put them on notice of a likely future act and they had an opportunity to control the child.
Facts:
- On October 4, 1999, Maxine Appelhans, age 66, was walking along a rural road that did not have a sidewalk.
- The weather was clear, the pavement was dry, and the road was straight and flat.
- William McFall, age five, was riding his bicycle on the same road.
- William McFall collided with Maxine Appelhans from behind while riding his bicycle.
- As a result of the collision, Appelhans fell and fractured her hip.
Procedural Posture:
- Maxine Appelhans filed her fourth amended complaint in the Circuit Court of McHenry County (trial court) against five-year-old William McFall for negligence and against his parents for negligent supervision.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss both counts.
- Maxine Appelhans, as plaintiff-appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under Illinois law, is a child under the age of seven capable of negligence, and can the child's parents be held liable for negligent supervision based solely on the child's age without specific allegations of prior misconduct?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Byrne
No. The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that a child under seven is incapable of negligence and that parents cannot be held liable for negligent supervision without allegations of specific prior conduct. Regarding the child's negligence, the court acknowledged compelling arguments to abandon the antiquated "tender years doctrine" in favor of a modern standard evaluating a child's age and experience. However, it reluctantly upheld the doctrine based on the principle of stare decisis, concluding that such a significant change in long-standing law should be made by the Illinois Supreme Court or the legislature, not an intermediate appellate court. Regarding parental liability, the court held that a plaintiff must plead that parents were on notice due to specific prior instances of the child's dangerous conduct. The plaintiff's claim, which rested only on the five-year-old's age as a basis for foreseeability, was insufficient as it would improperly impose a form of strict liability on parents for their children's actions.
Analysis:
This case is a prominent example of judicial restraint and the power of stare decisis, where an intermediate appellate court acknowledges that a legal doctrine may be outdated but defers to a higher court or the legislature for its modification. The opinion expressly invites the Illinois Supreme Court to re-examine the "tender years doctrine," highlighting the tension between established precedent and evolving societal norms regarding childhood development. By reinforcing the high pleading standard for negligent parental supervision, the court also protects parents from broad liability based merely on a child's age, requiring a clear link between prior specific acts and the injury-causing event.
Unlock the full brief for Appelhans v. McFall