Cooper v. Meyer
365 N.E.2d 201, 50 Ill. App. 3d 69, 7 Ill.Dec. 916 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent is not liable for the intentional tort of a minor child unless the parent knew of the child's dangerous propensities and had both the knowledge of the necessity and a specific opportunity to exercise control to prevent the harm.
Facts:
- Penny Cooper's child was struck by a 'brick bat' thrown by one of James R. Meyer's minor sons.
- Cooper went to James R. Meyer's residence to inform him of the incident.
- James R. Meyer was not home at the time of Cooper's visit.
- Meyer's older, minor son, Danny Meyer, was present at the residence.
- Cooper informed Danny Meyer about the incident involving his younger brother.
- In response, Danny Meyer allegedly flew into a rage, willfully and maliciously attacked Cooper, and knocked her to the ground.
- As a result of the attack, Cooper suffered a fractured jaw and other injuries.
- Cooper alleged that James R. Meyer knew his son Danny had propensities to attack persons.
Procedural Posture:
- Penny Cooper (plaintiff) filed an amended complaint against James R. Meyer (defendant) in the circuit court of Lawrence County, the trial court.
- Defendant James R. Meyer filed a motion to dismiss count III of the complaint, arguing it failed to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed count III with prejudice.
- Penny Cooper (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate Court.
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 control their minor child and prevent harm to a third party when the parent is not present, has no knowledge of the third party's presence, and thus has no opportunity to exercise control at the time of the injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Eberspacher
No, a parent does not have a legal duty under these circumstances. While there is an exception to the general rule of no parental liability for a child's torts, it requires that the parent knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising control over the child. The complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not allege facts showing that the defendant, James R. Meyer, had any opportunity to control his son or warn the plaintiff. Meyer was not home, was not aware of the plaintiff's visit, and therefore could not have foreseen the interaction or exercised control to prevent the attack. The requirements of the exception outlined in the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316—knowledge of the ability to control and knowledge of the necessity and opportunity for control—were not met.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the narrow scope of parental liability for the torts of their children, emphasizing the critical element of 'opportunity' to control. The court clarifies that a parent's general knowledge of a child's violent tendencies is insufficient to create a legal duty; there must be a specific, foreseeable situation where the parent could have reasonably intervened. This holding makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to hold parents liable for sudden, unpredictable acts of their minor children, as it requires pleading specific facts that show the parent had a chance to prevent the particular harm that occurred.
Unlock the full brief for Cooper v. Meyer