Nichols v. Atnip
844 S.W.2d 655, 1992 Tenn. App. LEXIS 833 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Parents are generally not liable for the torts of their adult children because they lack the legal authority and duty to control them. Neither providing financial assistance for a car owned by the adult child nor the family relationship itself is sufficient to establish liability under theories of negligent entrustment or negligent supervision.
Facts:
- Robert R. Atnip, Jr., who lived with his parents, Dr. and Mrs. Atnip, had a long history of alcohol and drug abuse starting before high school.
- His parents were aware of his substance abuse problem and his poor driving record, which included numerous citations, a DUI, and several accidents.
- Dr. and Mrs. Atnip permitted their son to own and operate a car, financially assisting him with insurance premiums, tires, and money for gas.
- On several occasions while he was a minor, his parents exercised control over his driving by revoking his privileges.
- After Robert destroyed his first car, his father found another one for him to purchase and continued providing financial assistance for its operation.
- On June 28, 1988, Robert Atnip, Jr., who was over 18 years old, became heavily intoxicated.
- While driving with a blood alcohol level of .21%, Atnip crashed into a car driven by Bryan Murphy, killing Murphy and a passenger, Andrew Nichols, and seriously injuring another.
Procedural Posture:
- The parents of Bryan Murphy and Andrew Nichols filed wrongful death actions against Dr. and Mrs. Atnip in the Circuit Court for DeKalb County, a trial court.
- The plaintiffs alleged liability based on negligent supervision, negligent entrustment, and a parental liability statute.
- Dr. and Mrs. Atnip, the defendants, filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaints.
- The plaintiffs, the Murphys and the Nichols, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do parents have a legal duty to control the conduct of their legally adult child to prevent harm to others, making them liable for the child's drunk driving accident under theories of statutory parental liability, negligent entrustment, or negligent supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Koch, J.
No, parents do not have a legal duty that would make them liable for the negligent acts of their adult child under these theories. Liability cannot be established under statutory parental liability because the son was not a minor, under negligent entrustment because the parents did not supply or furnish the car, or under negligent supervision because no special relationship exists that imposes a duty on parents to control their adult children. The court reasoned that each of the plaintiffs' three claims failed as a matter of law. First, the statutory parental liability claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 37-10-103 is inapplicable because the statute expressly applies only to 'minor' children, and Robert Atnip, Jr. was eighteen years old, making him a legal adult and fully emancipated by law. Second, the negligent entrustment claim fails because an essential element is the 'entrustment' of the chattel. Here, the son purchased the car with his own funds and held title in his name; the parents' financial assistance with expenses like insurance and gas does not constitute supplying or entrusting the vehicle itself. Third, the negligent supervision claim fails because parents do not have a general duty to control the conduct of their adult children. Such a duty arises only from a 'special relation,' and the parent-adult child relationship does not qualify because it does not grant the parents the legal capacity or authority to control the child's actions.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal boundary of parental liability, affirming that legal responsibility for an individual's torts shifts entirely to that individual upon reaching the age of majority. The ruling establishes that moral culpability or knowledge of an adult child's dangerous behavior does not create a legal duty for parents to intervene or control them. By narrowly defining 'entrustment' to exclude financial assistance, the court prevents a significant expansion of tort liability to family members who facilitate, but do not directly provide, an instrumentality of harm. This case serves as a strong precedent against holding parents accountable for the actions of their adult children, absent a specific relationship or action that grants them legal authority and control.
Unlock the full brief for Nichols v. Atnip