Lott v. Strang
245 Ill. Dec. 154, 727 N.E.2d 407, 312 Ill.App.3d 521 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For parents to be liable for negligent supervision of a minor child under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316, they must have knowledge of specific prior instances of conduct that would put them on notice that a particular harmful act is likely to occur, and they must have the opportunity for immediate control, not merely a general duty to impose long-term discipline.
Facts:
- In October 1995, William Seehausen, an unemancipated minor, was at fault in an automobile accident in which he struck a Jersey County deputy sheriff's vehicle.
- William's parents, Wayne and Bonnie Seehausen, knew about this prior accident.
- In September 1996, William was driving eastward on Route 16 in Jersey County.
- William's car crossed the centerline and collided head-on with a vehicle occupied by Jean Lott and her son, Kyle.
- As a result of the collision, William died, and both Jean and Kyle Lott were injured.
- The Lotts alleged that William was intoxicated at the time of the 1996 accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Roger and Jean Lott (plaintiffs) sued the estate of William Seehausen and his parents, Wayne and Bonnie Seehausen (defendants), in an Illinois trial court.
- Counts IV, V, and VI of the Lott's complaint alleged common-law negligent supervision against Wayne and Bonnie Seehausen.
- Wayne and Bonnie Seehausen filed a section 2-615 motion to dismiss the negligent supervision counts for failure to state a cause of action.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed counts IV, V, and VI.
- The trial court entered a finding under Supreme Court Rule 304(a) that there was no just reason for delaying an appeal of its order.
- The Lotts (appellants) brought this interlocutory appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, against Wayne and Bonnie Seehausen (appellees).
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 minor's single prior at-fault automobile accident constitute sufficient notice to his parents of a specific danger to create a duty of negligent supervision that requires them to prevent the minor from driving and causing a subsequent, fatal collision?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Steigmann
No. A single prior car accident a year earlier does not constitute knowledge of prior conduct sufficient to put parents on notice that a subsequent, similar collision was likely to occur. Parental liability for negligent supervision under Restatement § 316 requires that parents have an opportunity to exercise immediate control over the child to prevent a foreseeable harm at the time it is occurring. The Restatement does not impose a broad duty on parents to implement long-term disciplinary measures, such as revoking driving privileges, based on a single past incident. The court distinguished this case from Duncan v. Rzonca, where a mother had an immediate opportunity to prevent her son from repeating the specific act of pushing a bank alarm button just six days after he had first done it. Here, the prior conduct was too remote and non-specific to create a duty for the Seehausens to prevent William from driving on the day of the fatal accident.
Dissenting - Presiding Justice Cook
Yes. The complaint should not have been dismissed because it is possible for the plaintiffs to prove a set of facts that would entitle them to recover. The majority prematurely ended the case without allowing for discovery, which could have revealed that the parents knew of William's poor driving habits or his inclination to drive after consuming alcohol. The function of a motion to dismiss is to weed out meritless cases, not cases where the merit depends on facts that have not yet been uncovered. The dissent argues that parents do have a responsibility to supervise their children's driving and the majority's decision sends a startling message to the contrary. Dismissal on the pleadings was inappropriate when facts concerning the parents' knowledge and control were exclusively within their possession.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of parental liability for negligent supervision in Illinois, particularly regarding a minor's use of an automobile. It establishes that for liability to attach, the plaintiff must demonstrate more than general knowledge of a past transgression; they must show the parent was on notice of a specific, recurring danger and had an immediate opportunity to intervene. By rejecting the idea of a duty based on long-term regulation of conduct, the court raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, making it more difficult to hold parents responsible for their children's torts unless the parent was present or aware of an imminent threat.
Unlock the full brief for Lott v. Strang