Hoppe v. Hoppe
281 A.D.2d 595, 724 N.Y.S.2d 65 (2001)
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of parental immunity, which bars claims for negligent supervision, does not apply when a child's injury is caused by the parent's breach of a duty of care owed to the world at large, such as the duty to handle dangerous instrumentalities safely.
Facts:
- A father, the defendant, entrusted his son with a hammer.
- The father also provided his son with a container of nails.
- The container of nails included an explosive nail gun cartridge.
- The son struck the explosive cartridge with the hammer, causing it to explode and injure him.
Procedural Posture:
- The infant plaintiff sued his father, the defendant, in the Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County, which is a trial-level court.
- The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, arguing he was immune from the suit under the parental immunity doctrine.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
- The defendant, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, with the infant plaintiff as appellee.
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 parental immunity doctrine for negligent supervision bar a child's lawsuit against a parent for injuries resulting from the parent negligently entrusting the child with an explosive device?
Opinions:
Majority - Bracken, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ. (Per Curiam)
No. The parental immunity doctrine does not bar the lawsuit because the plaintiff has a cognizable claim that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendant’s breach of a duty owed to the world at large, not a duty arising solely from the parent-child relationship. The court acknowledged the established rule from Holodook v Spencer that a child may not sue a parent for negligent supervision. However, it distinguished this case by identifying a different duty at issue: the duty not to negligently maintain or entrust explosives. Citing Goedkoop v Ward Pavement Corp., the court held that this is a general duty owed to all persons, existing outside of and apart from the family relationship. Therefore, the claim is not for negligent supervision but for the breach of a broader, public-facing duty, and the suit is not barred by parental immunity.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a significant exception to the parental immunity doctrine in New York tort law. It clarifies that immunity for 'negligent supervision' is narrow and does not shield a parent from liability for breaching a general duty of care owed to the public. By focusing on the nature of the duty breached—whether it arises from the family relationship or from a general obligation to the world—the case prevents the doctrine from becoming a blanket immunity for all parental negligence. This precedent instructs lower courts to analyze the source of the alleged duty, significantly impacting cases involving parental negligence with dangerous instrumentalities like firearms, chemicals, or explosives.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Hoppe v. Hoppe (2001)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"