Suing Parents for Sleepovers?

Bryan Slaughter
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 531
Posted by Bryan SlaughterApril 19, 2009 5:56 PM
Tags: None

I was waiting to argue a case in the Virginia Supreme Court last week, and an interesting case relating to child safety was argued in front of me. The name is Michael H. Kellermann, Administrator, etc. v. Paul Mcdonough, et al., and the Court will make a decision about it in June, but I wanted to hear what people thought.

Since there has not been an opinion yet, I had to figure out what the facts were from the oral argument. It appears that the Mcdonough's invited Jaimee Kellermann, a fourteen year old girl, to their house to have a sleepover with their daughter. Jaimee's parents agreed to let her go on the condition that the Mcdonough's not let Jaimee ride in any cars with teenagers, because they knew that accident rates are much higher for new drivers, especially when there are other teenagers in the car. Before leaving her child with the family, Jaimee's mother said that she didn't want her child riding in cars with other teens, and the Mcdonough's agreed to this condition.

The girls went to see a movie. After the movie, the Mcdonough's daughter called her mother. and asked if they could get a ride home with some teenaged boys. The mother agreed. The car in which Jaimee was riding was apparently struck by another vehicle, and she was tragically killed.

Jaimee's parents brought a lawsuit, alleging that the Mcdonough's knowingly broke their promise about not letting Jaimee ride in a car with other teens, and as a result their oldest daughter was killed. The lower court threw the case out on the basis that the Mcdonough's did not have a legal duty to protect Jaimee is such a situation.

From the questions asked by the Justices, it appeared that they felt that parents hosting sleepovers ordinarily shouldn't be liable for injuries to their guests. What they focused on, however, was the specific request made by Jaimee's mother about not allowing the girls to ride in cars with other teens, and the agreement by the Mcdonoughs. This seemed to create an issue for some of the Justices - while ordinarily parents wouldn't be liable, if they affirmatively agree to do something to keep another child safe, and then knowingly don't do it, then maybe they should be legally responsible. The Court will decide the issue in June, so check back to find out what happens.

I'm conflicted on this. I personally don't think parents should ordinarily be able to sue if their child accidently gets hurt while a guest at someone else's house, but this might be a unique situation. What do other people think?

By the way, before people begin attacking Jaimee's parents for bringing this lawsuit, please understand that there is no way people who have not lost a child can understand their grief and anger. It's easy to say what you would or wouldn't do in such a situation, but until it happens to you (and god willing it never will), you can never really know what you'd do. My guess is they're bringing the lawsuit to change the law so maybe other parents will not have to go through the incredible tragedy they have experienced.

3 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Mike BryantInjuryBoard Attorney Member
Posted by Mike Bryant
April 19, 2009 8:32 PM

Very interesting question. Seems that they took on the responsibility and there was a clear issue at the start as to what wasn't allowed. Now, there's an additional causation issue as to the negligence, particularly as to coverage under the homeowners.

Fred Smithee
Posted by Fred Smithee
April 20, 2009 9:14 AM

I was in the Courtroom for the same argument. I have a slightly different take on the facts, or rather on what the facts were alleged to be by the parties (there having been no trial yet, since the case was kicked on a demurrer). The plaintiffs alleged that the girls call the mother to request that she pick them up at the theater and she instructed them to get a ride with someone, while the defendants assert that the girls made no such request and did not tell the mother that the driver of the vehicle was a teenager. If the case is remanded for a trial, the jury will have to sort this out, but I think the former set of facts makes the stronger case for liability. I recall the Chief Justice using the "drowning man" analogy we probably all remember from law school -- i.e. you have no duty to rescue a drowning man, but if you undertake to do so, you must not do so in a manner that negligently causes him harm. The problem I have with the analogy is that the rescue of a drowning man is an affirmative act, while the allegation is more removed in that the mother merely made a promise not to allow the visiting child from doing something -- unless the evidence is that she affirmatively "allowed" the child to ride in the car with the teenage driver, I am not sure that there is any liabiliy -- but, again, that is probably a jury question.

Fred Smithee
Posted by Fred Smithee
April 20, 2009 9:15 AM

I was in the Courtroom for the same argument. I have a slightly different take on the facts, or rather on what the facts were alleged to be by the parties (there having been no trial yet, since the case was kicked on a demurrer). The plaintiffs alleged that the girls call the mother to request that she pick them up at the theater and she instructed them to get a ride with someone, while the defendants assert that the girls made no such request and did not tell the mother that the driver of the vehicle was a teenager. If the case is remanded for a trial, the jury will have to sort this out, but I think the former set of facts makes the stronger case for liability. I recall the Chief Justice using the "drowning man" analogy we probably all remember from law school -- i.e. you have no duty to rescue a drowning man, but if you undertake to do so, you must not do so in a manner that negligently causes him harm. The problem I have with the analogy is that the rescue of a drowning man is an affirmative act, while the allegation is more removed in that the mother merely made a promise not to allow the visiting child from doing something -- unless the evidence is that she affirmatively "allowed" the child to ride in the car with the teenage driver, I am not sure that there is any liabiliy -- but, again, that is probably a jury question.

Comments for this article are closed.

Subscribe to InjuryBoard Charlottesville

InjuryBoard Charlottesville RSS Feeds

Keep up with the latest updates using your favorite RSS reader

Injury Board Charlottesville is brought to you by Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen and Tweel

Legal Assistance Center

More Info
Michie Hamlett Lowry Rasmussen and Tweel 866-735-1102 x 530 www.michiehamlett.com/
google
Personal Injury Lawyers Serving: Charlottesville, Roanoake, Danville, Bedford, Covington, Culpeper, Farmville, Harrisonburg, Interstate 81, Lexington, Louisa, Lynchburg, Smith Mountain Lake, Staunton, Waynesboro, Winchester
500 Court SquareSuite 300, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 [ Show Map ]120 Day Avenue SW, Roanoke, Virginia 24016 [ Show Map ]
Better Business Bureau Accredited Business Confidential

Your question will be referred to an attorney near you. If your question is of a legal nature, then by submitting this form you agree you are not forming a formal attorney / client relationship. Read our full privacy policy.

Looking for an InjuryBoard attorney closer to home? Click here.

Subscribe to Blog Updates

Enter your email address if you would like to receive email notifications when comments are made on this post.

Email address