No. The dad is not legally responsible for leaving the golf club in the yard. The judge explained that a golf club isn't something that's automatically dangerous just by existing—it's a normal item. The dad can't be blamed for negligence for simply leaving it out, even though his son later used it in a way that hurt someone.

No, Mr. Wells was not negligent. I don't think it makes sense to say a golf club is so clearly dangerous that just leaving it in your yard is negligent. The complaint against Mr. Wells doesn't work because a golf club isn't automatically super dangerous just because kids might use it wrong and get hurt. I'm using some other cases, Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation and Wood v. O'Neil, to back up my choice here. So I'm agreeing with Mr. Wells' request and saying the complaint against him doesn't have enough to move forward.

No, Mr. Wells was not negligent. It doesn't make sense to say a golf club is so clearly dangerous that just leaving it in a yard is negligent. The complaint against Mr. Wells doesn't work because a golf club isn't automatically super dangerous just because kids might use it wrong and get hurt. Other cases, like Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation and Wood v. O'Neil, back up this position. The request by Mr. Wells is granted, and the complaint doesn't have enough to move forward.

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?> <opinion type="majority"> <author id="b326-11"> Troland, J. </author> The complaint alleges that James Wells was the owner of a golf club and that he left it for some time lying on the ground in the backyard of his home. That thereafter his son, the defendant James Wells, Jr., aged eleven years, while playing in the yard with the plaintiff, Judith Lubitz, aged nine years, picked up the golf club and proceeded to swing at a stone lying on the ground. In swinging the golf club, James Wells, Jr., caused the club to strike the plaintiff about the jaw and chin. Negligence alleged against the young Wells boy is that he failed to warn his little playmate of his intention to swing the club and that he did swing the club when he knew she was in a position of danger. In an attempt to hold the boy’s father, James Wells, liable for his son’s action, it is alleged that James Wells was negligent because although he knew the golf club was on the ground in his backyard and that his children would play with it, and that although he knew or “should have known” that *323 the negligent nse of the golf club by children would cause injury to a child, he neglected to remove the golf club from the backyard or to caution James Wells, Jr., against the use of the same. The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the allegations of the complaint to state a cause of action or to support a judgment against the father, James Wells. It would hardly be good sense to hold that this golf club is so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligence to leave it lying on the ground in the yard. The father cannot be held liable on the allegations of this complaint. Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation, 139 Conn. 629; Wood v. O’Neil, 90 Conn. 497-500. The demurrer is sustained. </opinion>

No. Leaving a golf club on the ground does not constitute negligence on the part of a parent because a golf club is not an intrinsically dangerous instrument. The court reasoned that it would defy 'good sense' to classify a golf club as 'so obviously and intrinsically dangerous' that simply leaving it in a yard would amount to a negligent act. Parental liability for providing an instrument that causes injury only attaches when the instrument is inherently dangerous by its very nature. As the golf club does not meet this standard, the father cannot be held liable for the subsequent negligent use by his son.

No, James Wells is not negligent. I hold that it would not be sensible to consider a golf club so inherently dangerous that merely leaving it lying on the ground in one's yard constitutes negligence. The father, James Wells, cannot be held liable based on the allegations in this complaint because the golf club is not an intrinsically dangerous object that would obviously cause injury through negligent use by children. I rely on the precedent set in Goldberger v. David Roberts Corporation and Wood v. O'Neil to support this decision. Therefore, the demurrer is sustained, meaning the complaint against James Wells is dismissed for failure to state a valid cause of action.

Lubitz v. Wells

Premium Feature

Rule of Law:

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

Premium Content

Issue:

Opinions:

Majority - Troland, J.

Analysis:

Gunnerbot