Neel v. Sewell
834 F. Supp. 2d 648 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Michigan law, the parental immunity doctrine bars a child's claim against a parent for negligent supervision because supervising a child is considered an exercise of reasonable parental authority, one of the two exceptions to the general abrogation of parental immunity.
Facts:
- On March 8, 2009, Brandon Neel, age 17, was helping his father, David Edward Evans, and his aunt clean out his step-grandmother's house in Michigan.
- To dispose of excess garbage, a fire was started in the backyard, which Neel believed was his father's idea.
- While Neel and his aunt were adding bags to the fire, Neel discovered a bullet on the ground, which prompted them to begin inspecting the contents of each bag before burning it.
- At the time of the incident, Evans was inside the house, while Neel and his aunt were outside by the fire.
- As Neel was placing trash on the fire, a bag containing what was believed to be an aerosol can exploded.
- The explosion caused Neel to suffer severe burns to his face and arms.
- Neel attended special education classes in high school due to a learning disability.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Brandon Neel filed a lawsuit against his father, Defendant David Edward Evans, and his step-grandmother, Beverly Carolyn Sewell, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
- The court's jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship between the parties.
- Defendant Evans filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Plaintiff's claims against him were barred by the parental immunity doctrine under Michigan law.
- The parties fully briefed the motion for summary judgment.
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 parental immunity doctrine under Michigan law bar a child's claim against his father for negligent supervision when the child was injured while participating in the hazardous activity of burning trash?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Gerald E. Rosen
Yes, the parental immunity doctrine bars the child's claim. A child’s claim against a parent based upon negligent supervision is deemed to involve the exercise of reasonable parental authority and is therefore barred by the first exception to the abrogation of parental immunity established in Plumley v. Klein. The court reasoned that supervising a child's behavior, providing instruction, and warning of dangers are all activities that fall within the scope of parental authority. Precedent from Michigan appellate courts in cases like Paige, McCallister, Wright, and Mickel uniformly holds that claims based on a parent's failure to adequately supervise, warn, or protect a child from a dangerous instrumentality (such as a construction hole, swimming pool, gun, or lake) are barred. Neel's claim that his father failed to supervise him during the hazardous activity of burning trash fits squarely within this precedent. The court rejected the argument that immunity only applies if the parent's conduct was itself reasonable, clarifying that the focus is on the type of activity (i.e., parental supervision), not the quality of the parent's actions. The claim also does not fall into the category of a parent's 'direct commission of a wrongful act,' as the evidence was speculative as to who placed the explosive bag on the fire.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms and solidifies the broad scope of the 'parental authority' exception to the abrogation of parental immunity in Michigan. It clarifies that nearly any claim that can be framed as 'negligent supervision' will be barred, preventing courts from second-guessing a parent's supervisory decisions. The ruling demonstrates how federal courts applying state law are strictly bound by the state's highest court precedent (Plumley) and will give significant weight to a consistent line of intermediate appellate court decisions. This makes it exceedingly difficult for a child to succeed on a negligence claim against a parent unless the parent's action constitutes a direct, wrongful act entirely separate from their supervisory role.
Unlock the full brief for Neel v. Sewell