Dennison v. Prior
1993 Ill. App. LEXIS 1692, 191 Ill. Dec. 361, 252 Ill.App.3d 57 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A temporary custodian of a child is not liable for negligent supervision for entrusting the child to a third party, unless the third party's subsequent negligent act that caused the injury was reasonably foreseeable to the custodian.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's ten-year-old son, Wesley Dennison, was temporarily staying with his aunt, defendant Annette Dennison.
- Perry Prior, the husband of Annette's stepdaughter, arrived at Annette's home with his own young children.
- Prior asked for and received Annette's permission to go fishing at a nearby pond.
- Annette then gave Wesley and other children permission to walk to the pond, as an adult, Prior, would be present.
- While driving to the pond, Prior allowed Wesley and other children to ride on the hood of his car.
- Wesley fell from the hood and was pinned under the car, resulting in serious injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff, Wesley Dennison's mother, filed suit against Perry Prior and Annette Dennison in the circuit court of Sangamon County.
- The complaint alleged Annette was negligent in her supervision of Wesley and in entrusting his care to Prior.
- Annette Dennison filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The circuit court (trial court) granted summary judgment in favor of Annette.
- Plaintiff appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the 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:
Is a family member who is temporarily supervising a child liable for negligent supervision when she permits the child to accompany another adult, and that adult's unforeseeable negligence causes injury to the child?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Green
No. A family member is not liable for negligent supervision when the negligence of a third party was not reasonably foreseeable. The general rule is that a family member must use care that is reasonable under the circumstances when supervising children. The key question is whether Annette exercised reasonable care in permitting Wesley to go with Prior, which depends on whether she had reason to believe Prior was likely to be careless. The court found that as a matter of law, Prior's carelessness was not reasonably foreseeable. There was no evidence that Prior had a history of being careless with children, was intoxicated, or that Annette had any other reason to believe he would act negligently. The fact that Annette stated in a deposition she was not surprised by the accident does not establish legal foreseeability, which requires a greater expectation than the mere conceivable possibility of an occurrence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of duty for non-commercial, familial caretakers in negligent supervision and entrustment cases. It establishes that the general duty of 'reasonable care' is limited by the concept of foreseeability. The ruling raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, requiring them to demonstrate specific facts that would have put a reasonable caretaker on notice of a third party's potential for negligence. This precedent protects family members from liability for the unpredictable, independent acts of others to whom they entrust a child, preventing them from being held as insurers of a child's safety in all circumstances.
