Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencemotionwillmotion to dismiss

plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligencemotionwillpunitive damagesmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Mancino v. Webb, 274 A.2d 711

Facts

The incident occurred when a twelve-year-old boy threw a dirt clod, hitting a nine-year-old girl in the head, resulting in injuries. The girl's parents filed a complaint with three counts: one against the boy for assault and battery, one against the boy's parents for their negligent failure to control their son, and a third for damages incurred by the girl's parents due to her hospitalization. The boy's parents moved to dismiss the second count and to strike parts of the third count, arguing that the allegations were insufficient and that certain damages were not recoverable.

The complaint contains three counts alleging the above facts: The first is on behalf of the girl claiming compensatory and punitive damages from the boy, alleging his malicious, willful and wanton assault and battery on her; the second is on behalf of the girl seeking similar damages from the boy's parents, alleging their negligent failure' * * * to exercise the proper power of control over their son when they knew, or in the exercise of due care, should have known of his mischievous and reckless disposition which made injury to others a probable consequence'; and the third is on behalf of the girl's parents claiming damages for travel, lodging and telephone calls incurred while their daughter was in a hospital in another town; loss of their own wages; loss of their child's services; and mental anguish and suffering.

Issue

Whether a complaint seeking damages for injuries caused by a child's willful and wanton act alleges a negligence cause of action against the child's parents, and whether the allegations in the complaint are stated with sufficient particularity.

The first question to be resolved is whether a complaint seeking damages for injuries caused by a child's willful and wanton act alleges a negligence cause of action against the child's parents, when it charges the parents with failure to exercise the proper power of control over their child when they knew or should have known of his mischievous and reckless disposition.

Rule

A parent may be liable for the consequences of failure to exercise control over their child if they know or should know that injury to another is a probable consequence of the child's actions.

‘* * * the general rule is that a parent may be liable for the consequences of failure to exercise the power of control which he has over his children, where he knows, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that injury to another is a probable consequence.’

Analysis

The court analyzed the allegations in the second count of the complaint against the boy's parents, determining that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a negligence cause of action based on the parents' failure to control their child. However, the court found that the specific allegations regarding the parents' knowledge of the child's reckless behavior lacked the required particularity, leading to the conclusion that some parts of the complaint should be stricken.

Utilizing this standard, and comparing the substance of plaintiffs' allegations in count two of the complaint to the above authorities, it is the Court's opinion that defendants' motion to dismiss the second count should be denied.

Conclusion

The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the second count but granted in part their motions to strike, particularly regarding claims for lost wages and mental anguish, while allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

In accordance with the above, defendants' motion to dismiss is denied.

Who won?

The plaintiffs prevailed in that the court denied the motion to dismiss, allowing their negligence claim against the boy's parents to proceed.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Kinsey v. Cendant Corp., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2004 WL 2591946, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,045

Bartholomew v. Jackson, 20 Johns. 28, 11 Am.Dec. 237

Eastlake Const. Co., Inc. v. Hess, 33 Wash.App. 378, 655 P.2d 1160

Freitag v. Bill Swad Datsun, 3 Ohio App.3d 83, 443 N.E.2d 988, 3 O.B.R. 96

Juelfs v. Gough, 41 P.3d 593