Moon v. Thompson
469 N.E.2d 365, 82 Ill. Dec. 831, 127 Ill.App.3d 657 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law doctrine of parental tort immunity does not bar a third-party action for contribution against a parent when the parent's alleged negligence is the breach of a specific statutory duty owed to the general public.
Facts:
- Joseph Moon, a minor, was riding his bicycle.
- An automobile driven by Roy Thompson struck Joseph Moon.
- An Illinois statute required parents to properly instruct their children on the laws pertaining to the operation of a bicycle.
- Thompson's contribution claim alleged that Moon's parents were negligent in fulfilling this statutory duty.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff's father, on behalf of his minor son Joseph Moon, filed a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant, Roy Thompson, in an Illinois trial court.
- Thompson filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Joseph Moon's parents.
- The trial court granted the parents' motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, finding it was barred by the parental tort immunity doctrine.
- Thompson, the third-party plaintiff, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Illinois Appellate 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:
Does the common law doctrine of parental tort immunity bar a third-party action for contribution against a parent whose alleged negligence involves the breach of a statutory duty to instruct their minor child on bicycle safety laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Jiganti
The parental tort immunity doctrine does not bar a third-party action for contribution against the plaintiff's parents. The court reasoned that while parental immunity protects discretionary decisions within the family unit, that protection does not apply when a parent breaches a specific statutory duty. The Illinois Motor Vehicle Code imposed a duty on parents to instruct their children on bicycle laws, a duty owed to the general public. Because the legislature had already circumscribed parental discretion in this specific area, allowing a contribution action does not improperly interfere with the private family relationship. This holding aligns with the trend in Illinois law favoring the equitable principles of contribution over common law and statutory immunities, as seen in cases involving workers' compensation and interspousal immunity.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of the parental tort immunity doctrine in Illinois by creating an exception for breaches of statutory duties. It distinguishes between a parent's general, discretionary supervision (which remains protected) and a parent's failure to adhere to a specific legal mandate concerning their child's conduct. The ruling signals that when a parent's duty extends beyond the family unit to the public at large, as defined by the legislature, the policy favoring contribution among tortfeasors will prevail over the policy of preserving parental immunity. This precedent makes it more likely that parents can be held liable in contribution for their children's accidents if their conduct violates a specific safety statute.
