Langford v. Shu
258 N.C. 135, 128 S.E.2d 210, 1962 N.C. LEXIS 654 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent is liable for injuries caused by their child's tortious act if the parent's own negligence was a proximate cause of the injury, such as by participating in, aiding, or failing to exercise reasonable care to prevent a practical joke that was foreseeably likely to result in injury.
Facts:
- The defendant possessed a novelty box designed as a practical joke, which was labeled "Danger, African Mongoose, Live Snake Eater."
- When a trap on the box was sprung, a fake, furry object representing a mongoose would be released.
- The plaintiff, Mrs. Langford, was visiting the defendant's home as a social guest.
- The defendant knew that the plaintiff was an apprehensive person and was afraid of snakes.
- In response to the plaintiff's questions about the box, the defendant aided and abetted the prank being set up by her children.
- The defendant's eleven-year-old son sprung the trap, causing the fake mongoose to hurtle towards the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff, in a state of fright, fled precipitously from the object.
- As a result of her headlong flight, the plaintiff sustained bodily injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Langford (plaintiff) sued the defendant (mother) in the trial court to recover for personal injuries.
- At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, the trial court entered a judgment of compulsory nonsuit in favor of the defendant.
- The plaintiff appealed the trial court's judgment to the state's highest 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 parent liable for negligence when she aids and abets a practical joke played by her child on a visitor, and it was reasonably foreseeable that the resulting fright would cause the visitor to flee and sustain bodily injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Sharp, J.
Yes. A parent is liable for negligence if her own conduct was a proximate cause of the injury complained of. The fact that an injury results from a practical joke does not excuse the perpetrator from liability if it was foreseeable that the act could cause harm. Here, the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty not to subject her to a fright that she should have known was likely to result in injury. By participating in and setting the stage for the prank, knowing the plaintiff was particularly timorous, the defendant was negligent. It was reasonably foreseeable that the plaintiff would flee in terror and that such a panicked flight could result in bodily harm. Therefore, the evidence is sufficient to present the case to a jury to determine the defendant's liability based on her own negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle that liability for a practical joke hinges on the foreseeability of injury, not the intent to cause harm. It significantly clarifies the scope of parental liability, distinguishing it from vicarious liability. The court establishes that a parent is not liable merely due to the parent-child relationship, but can be held directly liable for their own negligence in failing to control their child or, as in this case, for actively participating in and encouraging the child's tortious conduct. This holding puts parents on notice that their active or passive encouragement of seemingly harmless pranks can lead to direct liability if injury to another is a probable consequence.
Unlock the full brief for Langford v. Shu