Johnson v. Fleet Mortgage Corp.
2001 La.App. 4 Cir. 0715, 2002 La. App. LEXIS 129, 807 So. 2d 1077 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A child's conduct is measured against the standard of a reasonably prudent person of the same age, maturity, intelligence, and knowledge. For a child's act to be deemed negligent, a child with similar characteristics must have been able to foresee the particular risk of harm that resulted from the activity.
Facts:
- On April 19, 1995, six-year-old Eric Johnson and eight-year-old Offie Simmons were playing together outside.
- Eric's mother, Carol Johnson, was initially supervising but went inside her apartment, leaving the boys unattended.
- The boys wandered to an adjacent abandoned property.
- While on the abandoned property, the boys found several white plastic bottles with red lettering.
- Offie Simmons jumped on one of the bottles, causing it to break.
- The bottle's liquid contents sprayed onto both boys, causing them to suffer chemical burn injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Carol Johnson, on behalf of her son Eric, filed suit in a trial court against Elizabeth Simmons (Offie's mother) and her insurer, Republic Underwriters Insurance Company.
- The defendants, Simmons and Republic, filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding Simmons's negligence.
- The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff, Carol Johnson, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit.
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 an eight-year-old child negligent for jumping on a discarded plastic bottle containing an unknown liquid, thereby making his parent vicariously liable, when a reasonably prudent child of the same age would not have realized the specific danger of causing serious chemical burns?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge McKay
No. A parent is not liable for their child's actions unless the child committed a tortious, negligent act. The standard for child negligence considers what a reasonably prudent child of the same age, maturity, and intelligence would have done. In this case, the court concluded that a reasonably prudent eight-year-old boy would not have realized or foreseen the specific danger that jumping on a discarded bottle could cause serious chemical burns to himself and his friend. Because Offie Simmons could not have foreseen this particular risk, his actions did not constitute negligence, and therefore, no liability can be attached to his mother, Elizabeth Simmons.
Dissenting - Judge Plotkin
The majority is incorrect to decide this issue as a matter of law. The proper inquiry is not whether the child could foresee the specific harm of chemical burns, but whether a reasonably prudent eight-year-old would understand that jumping on a bottle filled with an unknown substance could cause some type of injury. This is a fact-intensive question that requires consideration of the child's general maturity, intelligence, and knowledge. Such a determination is inappropriate for summary judgment and should be decided by a trier of fact after hearing evidence about Offie Simmons' specific characteristics and abilities.
Analysis:
This decision illustrates the application of the modified 'reasonable person' standard for children in tort law. The majority's narrow interpretation, requiring foreseeability of the specific type of harm (chemical burns), creates a higher bar for plaintiffs seeking to establish child negligence, especially in cases involving unusual accidents. The dissent advocates for a broader standard, where foreseeability of any general harm would be sufficient to send the case to a jury. This ruling makes it more difficult for such cases to survive summary judgment, thereby protecting children and their parents from liability for unforeseeable and bizarre consequences of childish behavior.
Unlock the full brief for Johnson v. Fleet Mortgage Corp.