Wells v. Hickman
1995 Ind. App. LEXIS 1408, 657 N.E.2d 172, 1995 WL 653041 (1995)
Rule of Law:
A parent has a duty to exercise reasonable care to control their minor child to prevent harm to others only when the parent knows or should have known of the child's habit of engaging in the particular course of conduct that caused the injury, making both the specific harm and the victim reasonably foreseeable.
Facts:
- Cheryl Wells's son, D.E., and Gloria Hickman's son, L.H., were neighbors.
- L.H., age 15, lived with his mother, Hickman, in a trailer on property owned by his grandparents, who were often involved in his care.
- In the year prior to the incident, L.H. had beaten a pet dog to death, killed a pet hamster, and expressed suicidal thoughts.
- Hickman was aware L.H. was 'full of anger' and had an 'uncontrolled anger,' and upon the recommendation of his school principal, L.H. attended counseling.
- On October 15, 1991, L.H. invited D.E., who was celebrating his 12th birthday, to play at his home.
- The boys went into the woods behind the grandparents' home, where L.H. beat D.E. to death.
- Later that evening, L.H. told his mother that he thought he had killed D.E.
- Prior to this incident, the two boys had apparently played together without any problems.
Procedural Posture:
- Cheryl Wells filed a wrongful death complaint against Gloria Hickman (L.H.'s mother) and Albert and Geneva Hickman (L.H.'s grandparents) in an Indiana trial court.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Hickman, determining that a state statute limited her liability to $3,000.
- The trial court denied the Grandparents' motion for summary judgment, allowing the negligence claim against them to proceed.
- Wells, as appellant, brought an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, challenging the summary judgment granted to Hickman.
- The Grandparents, as appellants, brought an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, challenging the denial of their summary judgment motion.
- The Court of Appeals consolidated the two appeals for review.
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 a parent have a common law duty to control their minor child to prevent harm to others if the specific type of harm and the specific victim were not reasonably foreseeable, even when the parent was aware of the child's general dangerous tendencies?
Opinions:
Majority - Najam, J.
No. A parent's duty to control their minor child is not triggered unless the specific harm and victim are reasonably foreseeable. While Indiana recognizes a common law cause of action for a parent's negligent failure to control a child, liability attaches only if the parent knew or should have known that the child had a habit of engaging in the particular conduct that led to the plaintiff's injury. Here, Hickman knew her son L.H. was troubled, had exhibited cruelty to animals, and had anger issues. However, this past conduct was not similar enough to make it reasonably foreseeable that L.H. would kill a neighborhood friend. Because neither the type of harm (homicide) nor the victim (D.E.) was foreseeable, Hickman had no legal duty to control L.H. for D.E.'s protection in this specific instance.
Analysis:
This decision formally adopts the 'negligent failure to control' tort from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316 into Indiana common law, establishing a new potential cause of action against parents. However, the court simultaneously sets a high bar for plaintiffs by requiring foreseeability of both the specific type of harm and the victim. This ruling makes it difficult to hold parents liable for their children's violent acts unless there is a clear, documented history of the child engaging in the same particular dangerous conduct. The decision protects parents from liability for unforeseeable, albeit tragic, escalations in their child's behavior, distinguishing general knowledge of a child being 'troubled' from specific knowledge of a direct threat.
