Strong v. Allen
768 P.2d 369, 1989 OK 17, 1989 Okla. LEXIS 27 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Jury verdicts are inconsistent, requiring a new trial on a child's claim, if they find a defendant partially negligent for a parent's derivative claim for a child's injury but entirely faultless for the child's own claim arising from the same injury, as parental negligence cannot be imputed to a child of tender years.
Facts:
- Keith Strong and his two-year-old son, Derek Strong, resided in an apartment complex.
- The apartment complex had a laundry room containing coin-operated clothes dryers.
- At the back of one of the commercial dryers, there was an exposed chain and sprocket mechanism.
- While Keith Strong was unloading clothes from one machine into another, Derek Strong ventured into a gap between two commercial dryers.
- Derek Strong entangled his right hand in the exposed chain and sprocket mechanism.
- Derek Strong sustained crushing and laceration injuries to his fingers.
- Keith Strong incurred $2,936.24 in medical expenses for Derek's treatment.
Procedural Posture:
- Keith Strong, individually and as guardian for his minor son Derek Strong, brought a negligence action against the apartment owners in a trial court to recover damages.
- The jury found the father 60% negligent and the defendants 40% negligent as to the father's individual claim for medical expenses, barring his recovery under Oklahoma's comparative negligence statute.
- The jury also found for the defendants with regard to the child's claims for compensatory and exemplary damages, assessing no percentage of fault to the child's claims.
- Plaintiff (Strong) appealed to the Court of Appeals, arguing that the jury verdicts were inconsistent.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict in an unpublished opinion, concluding that the proximate cause of the child's injuries was attributable to the parent’s lax supervision rather than the exposed mechanism.
- The Supreme Court of Oklahoma granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Are jury verdicts inconsistent, requiring a new trial, when defendants are found partially negligent for a parent's individual claim for a child's injury but entirely faultless for the child's own claim arising from the same injury, given that parental negligence cannot be imputed to a child of tender years?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, Justice
Yes, the jury verdicts were inconsistent and require a new trial on the child's claims. A child of tender years cannot be guilty of contributory negligence, and the negligence of a parent may not be imputed to such a child to bar or reduce the child's recovery against a third party. While it was proper for the jury to assess the father's negligence to his individual claim for medical expenses, the finding that defendants were 40% negligent for the father's claim (implying causation and fault) but faultless for the child's claim arising from the exact same injury demonstrates an impermissible imputation of the father's negligence to the child. The Court of Appeals' attempt to resolve the inconsistency by concluding the father's negligence was the sole proximate cause is unsupported by the record and precedent. The father's negligence does not qualify as a supervening cause under the three-prong test because it was not independent of the dangerous condition, not adequate by itself to cause the injury, and its occurrence was reasonably foreseeable.
Dissenting - Opala, Vice Chief Justice
No, the jury's verdict is not internally inconsistent. In Oklahoma common law, a child under seven years of age is conclusively presumed incapable of any negligence. Since the child-plaintiff was blameless, the comparative negligence statute was inapplicable to the child's claim, and if defendants were at fault, they would be jointly and severally liable without apportionment. The jury's finding for the defendants on the child’s claim, viewed by itself, is therefore compatible with the child's non-negligent status. The father was not a party to the child's claim, but the jury could have considered his lack of supervision as an efficient cause without imputing his negligence to the child. There is no record evidence of jury misconduct or disregard of instructions. The jury’s decision against the father on his derivative claim, where he was found more than 50% negligent, is entirely consistent with the law. The majority's conclusion that the jury must have imputed the father's negligence to the child is speculation not supported by the record, and no rule of law prohibits a jury from returning a no-recovery verdict for the child's principal claim while allocating negligence in the father's derivative claim.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Summers, Justice
Yes, I concur with the majority's decision to remand for a new trial regarding Derek’s actual damages. However, I dissent from the part of the opinion that would allow the issue of punitive damages to be submitted to the jury based on the facts of this case.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between a parent's derivative claim and a child's direct claim for injuries, especially concerning the imputation of negligence. It reinforces the long-standing principle that parental negligence cannot bar a child of tender years from recovery. The decision highlights the judiciary's role in scrutinizing jury verdicts for internal consistency, particularly in complex cases involving multiple claims and comparative negligence, and emphasizes that a finding of partial fault for one claim implies a causal link that cannot be arbitrarily disregarded for another claim arising from the same incident. The court's application of the supervening cause test from Thompson v. Presbyterian Hospital, Inc. further defines the limited circumstances under which a subsequent act can fully absolve an original actor of liability.
