Campbell v. Haiges
504 N.E.2d 200, 105 Ill. Dec. 331, 152 Ill.App.3d 246 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a parent to be held liable for the tortious act of their minor child, the plaintiff must plead specific facts of prior similar conduct that would have put the parent on notice that the act was likely to occur. A general, conclusory allegation of a child's 'tendency for violence' is insufficient to establish such a duty.
Facts:
- William and Diane Haiges were the parents of a minor child with known 'special education problems.'
- The Haiges entrusted their child to the care of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Gibbs, who operated a baby-sitting service from their home.
- On May 22, 1981, Jacob Campbell was playing on the Gibbses' property.
- While playing, the Haiges' child and the Gibbs' child attacked and mauled Jacob Campbell.
- At the time of the attack, William and Diane Haiges were both at work.
- Jacob Campbell was severely injured as a result of the attack.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacob Campbell, by his mother Marie Donnellan, filed a complaint in the circuit court of McHenry County against William and Diane Haiges (Count I) and Mr. and Mrs. Michael Gibbs (Count II).
- The complaint was amended several times, with the final version filed on February 24, 1986.
- The Haiges filed a motion for summary judgment on Count I.
- The Gibbses filed a motion to dismiss Count II for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the Haiges' motion for summary judgment and granted the Gibbses' motion to dismiss with prejudice.
- Plaintiff Jacob Campbell appealed the trial court's order to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
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 a parent have a legal duty to protect a third party from their minor child's violent act when the parent is not present and thus lacks immediate control, and when there are no specific allegations of prior similar violent acts that would put the parent on notice of the specific harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Hopf
No. A parent does not have a legal duty to protect a third party from their child's violent act under these circumstances. The general rule in Illinois is that parents are not liable for the torts of their children merely due to the parent-child relationship. An exception exists under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, which requires that the parent has the ability to control the child and knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity to exercise that control. Here, the Haiges did not have the ability to control their child as they were at work. More critically, for a duty to arise, the complaint must allege specific instances of prior conduct sufficient to put the parents on notice that the act complained of was likely to occur. The plaintiff's complaint offered only the bare, conclusional allegation that the Haiges knew of their child's 'tendency for extreme violence,' which is insufficient under Illinois's fact-pleading standard. Without factual allegations of prior similar violent acts, the Haiges were not on notice of the necessity to take special precautions, and therefore no duty was established.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for establishing parental liability for the torts of a minor child in Illinois. It clarifies that the notice requirement under the Restatement § 316 exception is specific, not general; a parent must be aware of a child's propensity to commit a particular type of act, evidenced by prior similar conduct. By rejecting 'conclusional allegations' of a violent tendency, the court solidifies Illinois's fact-pleading standard in this context, making it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss without concrete evidence of foreseeability. This holding protects parents and custodians from a broad duty to guard against any and all potential harm a child might cause, limiting liability to situations where a specific danger was known or should have been known.
