Lange v. Hoyt
114 Conn. 590, 159 A. 575, 82 A.L.R. 486 (1932)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The negligence of a parent in obtaining medical treatment for a child's injuries is not imputable to the child and generally will not defeat the child's recovery against a tortfeasor for all resulting damages; however, a parent's claim for expenses may be reduced if their own failure to exercise reasonable care aggravated the injuries.
Facts:
- On May 2, 1930, eight-year-old Minelda Lange was alighting from a school bus on the right-hand side of the Georgetown-Bethel Turnpike, approximately opposite her home.
- Before alighting, Minelda looked along the road and saw the defendant's automobile about 600 feet away.
- Minelda then immediately alighted, walked to the rear of the bus, and began to cross the road towards her home.
- The defendant, driving a La Salle sedan in a southwesterly direction, approached the school bus, which had 10-15 children in it with open windows, making the vehicle and its occupants readily observable.
- The defendant, who had substantially impaired hearing, failed to give any warning, keep a proper lookout, apply her brakes, reduce her speed, or maintain reasonable control of her vehicle.
- Minelda was struck by the left front of the defendant's automobile, carried approximately 20 feet, and the automobile proceeded another 20-40 feet before stopping.
- Minelda sustained a fracture of her left arm and a fracture and dislocation of her pelvis, which she claimed resulted in a permanent deformity that would interfere with normal childbirth.
- Minelda's mother, Minette B. Lange, a Christian Scientist, provided initial first-aid and took Minelda to a hospital, but then took her home against physicians' advice; subsequent medical treatment was not obtained until May 27th, after the defendant's physician recommended it on May 15th, leading the defendant to claim aggravation of injuries due to lack of proper treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Minelda Lange (a minor, through her mother Minette B. Lange) and Minette B. Lange (individually) sued the defendant (Hoyt, the driver of the automobile) in a trial court for damages arising from Minelda's injuries.
- The jury returned verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The defendant appealed the trial court's judgment, assigning error in the court's refusal to set aside the verdicts, its refusal to charge the jury as requested in some particulars, and in the charge as delivered.
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's failure to exercise reasonable care in obtaining medical treatment for a minor child's injuries constitute an intervening cause that defeats or reduces the child's recovery against a negligent defendant, or defeats the parent's recovery for medical expenses?
Opinions:
Majority - Avery, J.
No, a parent's failure to exercise reasonable care in obtaining medical treatment for a minor child's injuries does not defeat or reduce the child's recovery against a negligent defendant for all resulting damages because parental negligence is not imputable to the child; however, such negligence can reduce the parent's separate claim for medical expenses. The court affirmed the jury's finding of defendant's negligence and Minelda’s freedom from contributory negligence. The court reiterated that one injured by another's negligence must use reasonable care to promote recovery and prevent aggravation of injuries, but this rule applies differently to a dependent minor. A child of eight years is necessarily dependent upon her parents for post-injury care, and if the child herself is not negligent, the parent's failure to take proper steps does not defeat the child's recovery for all the results of the defendant's wrongdoing. The court found that the trial court's instruction suggesting that the mother’s negligence might be an intervening cause sufficient to defeat the child’s recovery for aggravated injuries was too favorable to the defendant. For the mother's separate claim for expenses, her recovery could be reduced if her own failure to exercise reasonable care, including consideration of her Christian Science beliefs (if aligning with reasonable, widely held curative methods), aggravated the injuries. The defendant is primarily liable for all pain, suffering, and injury proximately resulting from their wrongdoing, and an intervening cause sufficient to relieve them of liability must break the causal connection, which a parent's reasonable selection of a physician, even if the physician is negligent, is not deemed to do.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the principle of non-imputability of parental negligence to a minor child for purposes of mitigating damages in a personal injury claim. It protects children's rights to full recovery when injured by a tortfeasor, preventing defendants from shifting blame for post-accident care to parents, particularly when the child is too young to make such decisions independently. The ruling also differentiates between the child's claim and the parent's separate claim for expenses, allowing the parent's recovery to be diminished by their own lack of reasonable care, including how courts should evaluate deeply held beliefs like Christian Science in the context of reasonable care.
