Linder v. Bidner
50 Misc. 2d 320, 270 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1966 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1867 (1966)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent has a duty to exercise reasonable care to control their minor child to prevent the child from intentionally harming others if the parent knows or should know of the child's specific dangerous propensities and has the ability and opportunity to exercise such control.
Facts:
- Gary Bidner, a minor, had a known vicious disposition and a habit of assaulting smaller children.
- Gary's parents, Mac and Ann Bidner, were aware of this specific habit.
- The parents had been frequently notified by neighbors and others about similar vicious attacks committed by their son.
- The parents allegedly encouraged Gary's behavior by resenting any admonition or resistance from others whose children he had beaten.
- Despite knowing of his dangerous propensities, the parents permitted Gary to go out alone, without supervision or control.
- On June 4, 1965, while unsupervised, Gary Bidner assaulted Stuart Linder with his fists.
- At the time of the assault, Gary Bidner was 18 years old.
Procedural Posture:
- Stuart Linder sued Gary Bidner for assault and sued Gary's parents, Mac and Ann Bidner, for negligent supervision in a New York trial court.
- The defendant parents, Mac and Ann Bidner, filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against them for failure to state a cause of action.
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 complaint state a valid cause of action for negligent supervision against parents when it alleges they knew of their minor child's specific and habitual propensity to assault smaller children, had the ability to control him, and failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent him from harming others?
Opinions:
Majority - J. Irwin Shapiro, J.
Yes. A complaint states a valid cause of action for negligent supervision against parents where it sufficiently alleges that the parents had knowledge of their child's specific dangerous propensities and failed to exercise reasonable care to control that child. Adopting the standard from the Restatement of Torts § 316, the court found that a parent has a duty to control their child to prevent harm to others when they know of the child's dangerous habits and have the ability to exercise such control. The allegations in the complaint—that the Bidners knew of Gary's 'vicious and malignant disposition' and 'habit of mauling' smaller children, were notified by neighbors, and yet failed to restrain him—are sufficient to meet this standard. The court distinguished this from liability for a child's 'general incorrigibility,' emphasizing that the duty arises from knowledge of a specific and definite type of harmful conduct. The parents' defense that their son was emancipated was deemed a question of fact to be determined at trial, not on a motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that while parents are not vicariously liable for their children's torts, they can be held directly liable for their own negligence in failing to supervise a child with known dangerous tendencies. It formally adopts the Restatement of Torts § 316 standard in this jurisdiction, shifting the legal focus from the child's act to the parents' independent failure to act reasonably in light of a foreseeable risk. This creates a direct duty for parents to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm caused by a child's specific, known, dangerous habits. Future cases alleging negligent supervision will depend heavily on the plaintiff's ability to prove the parents' knowledge of a specific, rather than general, propensity for harm.
