Question

Your firm represents Amanda and Sam Baker, grandparents of two-year-old Brian Baker. Brian was recently injured in a home accident. The two-year-old stuck a hairpin into an electrical outlet and was severely burned. The parents had not installed safety plugs in the outlets because they felt the plugs gave a false sense of security. The plugs are easily removed and were not present in many of their friends' homes. The grandparents want to bring a negligence suit on the child's behalf against the parents.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has decided the following cases:

Sorensen v. Sorensen (1975)- A child was injured when his father negligently caused an automobile accident. The court held that children could sue their parents but limited the holding to motor vehicle cases and limited the recovery to the amount of available insurance. For its reasoning the court stated that neither the argument that such suits would disrupt the peace and harmony of the family nor the argument that such actions would tend to promote fraud and collusion was valid.

Lewis v. Lewis (1976)—A wife was injured when her husband negligently caused an automobile accident. The court held that the wife could sue her husband but limited the holding to motor vehicle cases. The court did not limit the recovery to the amount of insurance, stating: "In the present case there is nothing in the record concerning the availability or the amount of the defendant's liability insurance, and we do not refer to insurance as a limiting factor in our holding. We do not interpret the logic (as opposed to the precise holding) of Sorenson as turning on the availability of insurance in each case, and we decline to limit liability in interspousal tort actions in such a fashion." The court cited Sorenson with approval as standing for the proposition that such suits would not disrupt the peace and harmony of the family or tend to promote fraud and collusion. Finally, while acknowledging that some actions that would constitute torts between strangers might not constitute torts if committed between spouses, the court based its decision on the general principle that normally there should be recovery for tortious injury.

Brown v. Brown (1980)—A wife was injured when she slipped on the front steps that her husband had forgotten to salt. The court held that the wife could sue her husband. The court reasoned that while certain behavior between spouses might not be tortious, that was for a trial court to determine at trial, and the case should not be dismissed as a matter of immunity.

Based on prior case law discuss arguments to change the law and allow the child to sue his parents for negligence?

Answer 1

Parents have the responsibility to take care of their children. The case was simply a case of negligence which has caused a severe injury to the small child. The parents have not installed safety plugs for the safety of children which caused this accident. The court in various cases has mentioned the arguments which must not affect the peace and harmony of the family. In all the cases the same argument was presented by the court. But an accident that occurred due to the negligence of the family has already harmed the peace and harmony of the family. The child was severely burnt due to parents' negligence and the grandparents were there to file the complaint against the parents. The court should see the seriousness of the offense and must treat it as a criminal offense against the parents and must set an example for others. It is not just saying that peace and harmony must not be destroyed by the family. Rather court must take actions against the parents by changing the law related to the family negligence. The parents must be sued on the grounds of negligence with such a small child who is unaware of the accident which may be caused. The court must see the level of the accident and the penalty and punishment must be given according to the severeness of the case.