Bell v. Hudgins, 831966
Citation | 232 Va. 491,352 S.E.2d 332 |
Decision Date | 16 January 1987 |
Docket Number | No. 831966,831966 |
Parties | Anne Hunter BELL v. Littleton C. HUDGINS, Sr., et al. Record |
Court | Supreme Court of Virginia |
Robert John Haddad (Stephen C. Swain, Richard G. Brydges, Clark & Stant, P.C., Virginia Beach, on brief), for appellant.
Lawrence H. Framme, III (Beverly Warner Snukals, Mezzullo, McCandlish & Framme, Richmond on brief), for appellees.
Present: All the Justices.
We awarded an appeal in this negligence case to consider the question whether, in the absence of a principal-agent relationship, parents may be liable for the malicious, intentional acts of their minor child based on the independent negligence of the parents in failing to control the child. We have examined the issue and have concluded not to impose such liability.
Appellant Anne Hunter Bell was injured severely on February 2, 1981 in the City of Virginia Beach when she was attacked at her place of employment, the Mariner Hotel, by Littleton C. Hudgins, III, son of appellees Littleton C. Hudgins, Sr. and Dorothy T. Hudgins. Bell sued the assailant, his parents, and her employer, seeking recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. The trial court sustained a demurrer filed by the parents and we awarded the plaintiff this appeal.
In her motion for judgment, the plaintiff alleged that the assailant, who was 16 years of age and resided with his parents in their Virginia Beach home, had suffered "for a long period of time" from serious emotional problems, all of which were known to the parents. The plaintiff further asserted that "on frequent occasions these emotional problems manifested themselves in violence" on the part of the son, a fact "well known" to the parents. The plaintiff also alleged that, immediately prior to the date of the attack on her, the son had been involved "in certain illegal activities" on her employer's premises, located near the home of the parents. She asserted that these "activities" involved violence and threats of violence which were "made known" to the parents.
The plaintiff alleged that the knowledge of such violent conduct should have put "anyone" on notice that the son "should be placed in an institution for safe keeping." Nevertheless, the plaintiff asserted, "the defendant parents failed to heed those warnings and clear indications of potential harm and allowed the child to remain free to move about the community at will." She asserted that the parents, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have "seen to his in house custodial treatment and care."
The plaintiff alleged that, as the result of the parents' negligent failure to prevent the son from being "at large" in the community, she was permanently injured when the son attempted to rape her and when he assaulted her with a knife while she was performing her duties as a desk clerk at the hotel.
In sustaining the demurrer, the trial court ruled that the plaintiff's claim did not state a cause of action. The court noted that "[i]f public policy demands a parent to be held liable in these circumstances, it should be accomplished by an appropriate act of the General Assembly and not by judicial pronouncement." We agree.
(b) knows or should know of the necessity and opportunity for exercising such control." Restatement (Second) of Torts § 316.
We decline the plaintiff's invitation.
We are unwilling to establish in Virginia by judicial decree a blanket rule which would impose civil liability upon parents who fail to control their minor child's criminal behavior. See Lanterman v. Wilson, 277 Md. 364, 354 A.2d 432 (1976)....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Corrigan v. U.S.
...at 624. Lest this not be a clear indication of how the Virginia Supreme Court would treat the argument, we point to Bell v. Hudgins, 232 Va. 491, 352 S.E.2d 332 (1987), in which the court declined to hold a parent liable for the tort of a child in injuring another, in the absence of master-......
-
Wyatt v. McDermott
...concerning the adoption of any new theory of liability, especially when conflicting public policy issues abound. Bell v. Hudgins, 232 Va. 491, 495, 352 S.E.2d 332, 334 (1987). Our recognition of an existing common law tort is consistent with this tradition of deference. Indeed, in accordanc......
-
Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Overstreet
...to believe that a claim might be brought against them and their sons. Defendants' argument to the contrary, relying on Bell v. Hudgins, 232 Va. 491, 352 S.E.2d 332 (1987), is unpersuasive. In Bell, which did not involve insurance coverage or notice issues, the Supreme Court of Virginia held......
- Shipman v. Kruck
-
Margaret F. Brinig, Children's Beliefs and Family Law
...of parental liability for child's malicious destruction of school property), appeal dismissed, 454 U.S. 1025 (1981); Bell v. Hudgins, 352 S.E.2d 332 (Va. 1987) (rejecting tort liability against parents for their child's malicious intentional act, an attempted rape). Parents have always been......