Williams v. Jordan
12 McCanless 456, 346 S.W.2d 583, 208 Tenn. 456 (1961)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A driver of a motor vehicle does not have a duty to search around or under the vehicle for the presence of a child before starting it, unless the driver is aware of the child's presence in a position of close proximity to the vehicle or in a situation of potential danger. The mere presence of children playing in the general vicinity is insufficient to create such a duty.
Facts:
- The deceased, Anthony Jordan, was a 13-month-old child who was able to walk.
- Val Patillo parked a car, belonging to his aunt Viola Williams, on a gravel strip in front of the Jordan family's residence at around 7:00 p.m. on a clear day.
- At the time he parked, Patillo observed other children playing on a playground approximately 90 feet away from the vehicle.
- Anthony Jordan's mother left him sitting on the front porch steps for two to three minutes while she went inside the house to retrieve a toy.
- Patillo spent about five minutes visiting a friend across the street before returning to the car.
- Patillo got into the driver's side of the car, started the engine, and drove away without walking around the vehicle or looking underneath it.
- As he pulled away, Patillo felt a bump under the right rear wheel but assumed he had run over a stepping stone.
- After Patillo drove off, Anthony was found fatally injured on the ground; it is undisputed that Patillo's vehicle caused the injury.
Procedural Posture:
- Samuel Jordan, as administrator for the estate of Anthony Jordan, sued Val Patillo and Viola Williams for negligence in the Circuit Court of Tennessee (trial court).
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $15,000, and the trial court entered a judgment on the verdict.
- The defendants, Patillo and Williams, appealed the judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendants, as petitioners, were granted certiorari by the Supreme Court of Tennessee to review the decision of the 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:
Does a driver who is generally aware of children playing in the vicinity, but not in close proximity to the vehicle, have a duty to search around and under the vehicle before starting it to ensure no child is present?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Swepston
No. Ordinary care does not require the operator of a motor vehicle to look under and all around the automobile before starting it unless the driver is aware of a child's presence in close proximity to the vehicle or in a situation of apparent danger. Negligence cannot be inferred from the mere fact of an injury occurring, and there was no evidence that the child was in a position where he could have been seen by the driver exercising ordinary care. The critical distinction in such cases is whether children are merely in the general vicinity, versus being in a position of close proximity or a situation of danger that would put a driver on notice of a real probability of harm. Here, the other children were 90 feet away, and if the driver had seen the infant on the porch, he would have been entitled to assume the mother was providing supervision. Therefore, Patillo had no reason to foresee the child's presence near the car and was not negligent for failing to conduct a search before driving away.
Dissenting - Justice Felts
Yes. A driver who parks a vehicle in a yard where they know small children are playing is under a duty to exercise a degree of vigilance commensurate with the greater hazard and take precautions before moving the vehicle. Children are known to act on childish impulses, and a driver is chargeable with a duty of care and caution towards them. The majority failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, as required when reviewing a motion for a directed verdict. Given that Patillo parked in the plaintiff's yard, knew children played there, and admitted he could not see the front or right side of the car from the driver's seat, a jury could reasonably find that his failure to look for children before driving off constituted a breach of his duty of care.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant limitation on the duty of care owed by drivers to children in residential areas. By creating a clear distinction between a child's 'general vicinity' and 'close proximity,' the court protects drivers from liability in tragic accidents where the child's presence in a dangerous position was not reasonably foreseeable. The ruling underscores that parental supervision is the primary safeguard for very young children and that a driver's heightened duty is only triggered by specific facts indicating a known, immediate danger. This precedent makes it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence cases involving children in vehicle blind spots unless they can prove the driver had specific knowledge of the child's perilous location.
