A Connecticut trial court, in a personal injury action brought by a mother for injuries allegedly suffered by her son, has ruled that the parental immunity doctrine precluded the defendants from seeking indemnification from the mother on the ground that she had failed to properly supervise her child.
The Case
Vincent Delmedico, a minor, and his mother, Betty Larsen, sued four defendants for negligence and recklessness alleging that Vincent had been seriously injured when he fell 10 feet from a deck at their apartment when the railing gave way. Ms. Larsen alleged that she incurred and reasonably likely would continue to incur expenses for her son's medical treatment.
They sought to hold the defendants liable for Vincent's injuries and losses on the ground that the defendants were responsible for the maintenance, inspection, and general upkeep of the premises as owners, or otherwise owed a duty of care to Vincent and Ms. Larsen, and that they had breached their duty.
Three of the defendants, Panda Properties, LLC, Andrew Zeeman, and Leigh Zeeman (collectively, the “defendants”), filed a counterclaim against Ms. Larsen alleging that she had failed to properly supervise her child, and they sought to hold her responsible for any money damages and costs that they might incur in the case, in three counts: common law indemnification (first count), contractual indemnification (second count), and breach of contract (third count).
Ms. Larsen contended that all three counts of the defendants' counterclaim should be stricken as legally insufficient because they asserted claims against a parent that were barred by the doctrine of parental immunity.
The Trial Court's Decision
The trial court granted the motion to strike.
In its decision, the trial court explained that the doctrine of parental immunity barred an unemancipated child from suing his or her parents for personal injuries. Under this doctrine, the trial court continued, a parent was not liable civilly to his or her child for personal injury inflicted during the child's minority.
The trial court pointed out that the doctrine of parental immunity not only prevented direct actions by a child against a parent but also operated “to preclude the parent of a minor plaintiff from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of apportionment of liability, contribution or indemnification based on the parent's allegedly negligent supervision of the minor plaintiff.”
Because all of the defendants' counterclaims were third-party actions based on Vincent's mother's alleged negligent supervision of Vincent, they all were “within the purview of the doctrine of parental immunity,” the trial court found.
Concluding that the doctrine barred claims both sounding in tort and contract, it granted the motion to strike on this ground.
Steven A. Meyerowitz
Steven A. Meyerowitz, a Harvard Law School graduate, is the founder and president of Meyerowitz Communications Inc., a law firm marketing communications consulting company. He may be contacted at [email protected].