Broadbent by Broadbent v. Broadbent
907 P.2d 43 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of parental immunity is abolished. A parent's conduct will be judged by a "reasonable parent" standard, which assesses whether the parent acted as a reasonable and prudent parent would in a similar situation.
Facts:
- Laura J. Broadbent and her two-and-a-half-year-old son, Christopher, were at their family's swimming pool.
- Christopher, who did not know how to swim, was wearing inflatable 'floaties' on his arms, which his mother understood were not a substitute for supervision.
- The telephone rang inside the house, and Laura saw Christopher remove his floaties before she went to answer it.
- Laura left Christopher alone and unsupervised by the pool for 5 to 10 minutes while on the phone, from a location where she could not see him.
- Upon returning to the pool, Laura found Christopher floating in the deep end.
- As a result of the near-drowning and lack of oxygen, Christopher suffered severe and permanent brain damage, losing all motor skills and voluntary movement.
Procedural Posture:
- A complaint was filed in an Arizona trial court on behalf of Christopher Broadbent against his mother, Laura J. Broadbent, alleging negligence.
- Laura Broadbent moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by the doctrine of parental immunity.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Laura Broadbent.
- The plaintiff, through his conservator, appealed the trial court's decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling, holding that the doctrine of parental immunity applied.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review of the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the doctrine of parental immunity bar a negligence action brought on behalf of a minor child against a parent for injuries resulting from the parent's alleged negligent supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Corcoran, J.
No. The doctrine of parental immunity does not bar a negligence action brought by a child against a parent. The court abolishes the doctrine and adopts a 'reasonable parent' standard, under which a parent's conduct is judged by whether it comported with that of a reasonable and prudent parent in a similar situation. The court reviewed the historical justifications for parental immunity—such as preserving domestic tranquility, preventing fraud, and avoiding interference with parental discipline—and found them all to be weak and unpersuasive. The court also overruled its prior precedent from Sandoval v. Sandoval, which created an unworkable distinction between a parent's duty 'to the world at large' versus a duty owed only to the child. The court held that this distinction led to inconsistent results and had no logical connection to the rationale for immunity. By adopting the 'reasonable parent' test, parental negligence cases are brought in line with general tort principles, and a jury can determine if the parent’s actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances.
Concurring - Feldman, C.J.
No. The concurring opinion agrees with the abrogation of parental immunity and the adoption of the reasonable parent test but writes separately to offer a note of caution. The author distinguishes between two types of parental conduct. The first involves areas of broad parental discretion (e.g., deciding to enroll a child in swimming lessons), where liability should only attach if the decision was 'palpably unreasonable.' The second involves acts of general supervision and caretaking (e.g., leaving an unsupervised toddler by a pool), which fall under a standard duty of due care. The mother's actions in this case fall into the second category as an inadvertent act of failed supervision, not an exercise of parental decision-making authority.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant shift in Arizona tort law by completely abolishing the doctrine of parental immunity. By replacing the confusing 'duty to the world' test with the objective 'reasonable parent' standard, the court aligned parental torts with general negligence principles. This change makes it easier for children to recover for injuries caused by parental negligence, particularly in cases where liability insurance is available to compensate the child without depleting family assets. The ruling will require lower courts to develop jurisprudence on what constitutes 'reasonable' parental conduct, a standard that the concurrence notes must carefully distinguish between protected parental discretion and ordinary negligence.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Broadbent by Broadbent v. Broadbent (1995)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"