Jones v. Robbins
289 So. 2d 104 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vendor who sells a dangerous substance like gasoline to an unsupervised young child breaches a duty of care. This duty extends not only to the child purchaser but also to other children who are foreseeably put at risk by the first child's possession and potential misuse of the substance during group play.
Facts:
- Six-year-old Penny Wyatt went to Robbins Gulf Service Station, which was managed by George Robbins.
- After being initially refused for using a glass container, George Robbins sold a small quantity of gasoline to Penny in a plastic container for four cents.
- Penny took the container of gasoline back to her yard and placed it on the rim of a well.
- Penny and her nine-year-old sister, Zelma, played with the gasoline by washing their hands in it.
- About an hour and a half after the purchase, their four-year-old half-sister, Candy Jones, found a match.
- Candy Jones struck the match and threw it into the gasoline container, causing it to ignite and severely burn her.
Procedural Posture:
- Willie Leon Jones, on behalf of his minor daughter Candy Jones, filed a delictual (tort) action for damages against Henry Robbins and George Robbins in a Louisiana district court (trial court).
- The district court rendered judgment in favor of the defendants, Robbins.
- The plaintiff, Jones, appealed the decision to the Louisiana Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The plaintiff, Jones, successfully petitioned the Supreme Court of Louisiana for a writ of review.
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 service station attendant who sells gasoline to an unsupervised six-year-old child breach a legal duty owed to the child's four-year-old half-sister, who is subsequently burned after igniting the gasoline?
Opinions:
Majority - Barham, Justice
Yes, the attendant breached a legal duty owed to the four-year-old half-sister. A vendor of a dangerous substance like gasoline has a duty not to place it in the hands of those, like a young child, who are unaware of its special propensities and the necessary precautions. This duty encompasses the foreseeable risk that the child purchaser might engage in group play, and that another young, incompetent child could misuse the substance and cause harm. The risk that Candy would be injured through Penny's possession of the gasoline is precisely the kind of risk that the duty not to sell gasoline to an unsupervised child was designed to protect against. The sale was a cause-in-fact of the injury, and the harm fell within the scope of the duty owed by the defendants.
Dissenting - Summers, Justice
No, the attendant did not breach a legal duty owed to the four-year-old half-sister. There was no negligence toward Candy because the attendant's duty was owed to Penny, the child who bought the gasoline, not to third parties of whom the attendant was unaware. The harm to Candy was not reasonably foreseeable. Furthermore, the mother's failure to supervise her children for the one-and-a-half to two hours after the sale constituted an intervening cause that broke the chain of causation and shifted responsibility from the attendant to the parent.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Louisiana's use of the duty-risk analysis in negligence cases, expanding the scope of a defendant's duty to foreseeable third-party victims. The court moved beyond a narrow foreseeability test focused only on the immediate actor, establishing that the duty to avoid entrusting dangerous instrumentalities to a child protects other children who are likely to be involved in group play. This precedent makes it easier for injured third parties to recover against a negligent provider of a dangerous substance, focusing on the policy question of whether the defendant's duty should encompass the specific risk that materialized.
