Haddrill v. Damon

Decision Date20 May 1986
Docket NumberDocket No. 78538
Citation386 N.W.2d 643,149 Mich.App. 702
CourtCourt of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
PartiesShirley HADDRILL, as Next Friend of Kevin Haddrill, a Minor Child, and Shirley Haddrill, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John Charles DAMON, William Damon, Betty Damon, Robert Cinquemani, Paul A. Lovchuk, Mary Lovchuk, Marquita Lovchuk, Garrett Sales & Management Co., Inc., Lake Shore Development Co., Hamlin Associates, and Gary Haddrill, Defendants. 149 Mich.App. 702, 386 N.W.2d 643

[149 MICHAPP 703] Bebout, Potere, Cot & Hughes, P.C. by Francis P. Hughes, Rochester, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Romain, Donofrio, Kuck, P.C. by Michael P. Daniels, Southfield, for defendants.

Before SHEPHERD, P.J., and R.B. BURNS and TAHVONEN, * JJ.

TAHVONEN, Judge.

Plaintiffs Shirley Haddrill, individually and as next friend of Kevin Haddrill, a minor child, and Gary Haddrill brought a negligence action in circuit court against several defendants, including defendant Gary Haddrill, the father. The circuit court granted Gary Haddrill's motion for summary judgment premised on GCR 1963, 117.2(1). Plaintiffs appeal as of right. The sole issue for our consideration is whether the minor child's claim against his father, Gary Haddrill, is barred by the doctrine of parental immunity. [149 MICHAPP 704] We hold, as did the trial court, that it is, and affirm its grant of summary judgment.

On May 16, 1982, 12-year-old Kevin Haddrill was riding his 1979 100cc Yamaha dirt bike on property located in Avon Township owned by defendants Paul A. Lovchuk, Mary Lovchuk, Marquita Lovchuk, Garrett Sales & Management Company, Inc., Lake Shore Development Company, and Hamlin Associates. As Kevin emerged from a wooded area, he was struck by a larger 250cc dirt bike operated by defendant John Charles Damon, a minor. He sustained serious injuries which have resulted in permanent impairment and disability, including paralysis and mental deficiencies.

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint alleges negligence against Kevin's father, Gary Haddrill. It is claimed in paragraphs 42 through 44 that Gary Haddrill purchased his son's dirt bike and helmet and that he: negligently entrusted the dirt bike to his 12-year-old son; failed to instruct the child in its proper use; failed to supervise the boy's use of the bike; and further that he knew the bike and helmet were inherently dangerous, especially when he entrusted the bike to the boy without properly instructing him in its use and without properly supervising him.

The circuit court granted Gary Haddrill's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the claim was barred by the doctrine of parental immunity. We think that this was proper. Motions brought under GCR 1963, 117.2(1) are to be decided on the pleadings alone. Wright v. Wright, 134 Mich.App. 800, 805, 351 N.W.2d 868 (1984). The motion tests the legal basis of the complaint, not whether it can be factually supported. Unless the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development can possibly justify a right to recovery, the motion should be [149 MICHAPP 705] denied. McCallister v. Sun Valley Pools, Inc., 100 Mich.App. 131, 135, 298 N.W.2d 687 (1980), lv. den. 411 Mich. 905 (1981).

At common law, a minor could not sue his or her parents in tort. Elias v. Collins, 237 Mich. 175, 177, 211 N.W. 88 (1926) (Bird, C.J., dissenting in part). Elias was overruled by Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1, 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972), in which the Supreme Court abrogated the doctrine of parental immunity in suits by children against parents for negligence, subject to the following two exceptions:

"A child may maintain a lawsuit against his parent for injuries suffered as a result of the alleged ordinary negligence of the parent. Like our sister states, however, we note two exceptions to this new rule of law: (1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care." 388 Mich. 8, 199 N.W.2d 169 (Footnote omitted.)

Gary Haddrill moved for summary judgment relying on the first of these two exceptions. This Court has consistently held that a suit such as this one, grounded upon negligent parental supervision, falls within the first Plumley exception. 1 See Wright v. Wright, supra, 134 Mich.App. pp. 806-807, 351 N.W.2d 858; McCallister v. [149 MICHAPP 706] Sun Valley Pools, Inc., supra, 100 Mich.App. pp. 137-139, 298 N.W.2d 687; Hush v. Devilbiss Co., 77 Mich.App. 639, 643-644; 259 N.W.2d 170 (1977); Paige v. Bing Construction Co, 61 Mich.App. 480, 485, 233 N.W.2d 46 (1975), lv. den. 395 Mich. 751 (1975). The parent-child relationship is a special one and not every act or omission by a parent can be regarded as actionable negligence. Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed), Sec. 122, p 908. New York courts have also barred suits for negligent supervision entirely. See, e.g., Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35, 364 N.Y.S.2d 859, 324 N.E.2d 338, 346 (1974); Nolechek v. Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332, 413 N.Y.S.2d 340, 385 N.E.2d 1268 (1978) (involving parents' decision to permit minor child to use a motorcycle).

We conclude that the asserted negligence of Gary Haddrill in providing his son with a 100cc dirtbike and in failing to properly train, educate or supervise him in its use falls within the scope of "reasonable parental authority" over the child and is cloaked with immunity under Plumley v. Klein, supra. Providing instruction and education so that a child may be aware of dangers to his or her well-being is also included in the definition of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Estate of Goodwin v. Nw. Mich. Fair Ass'n
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • July 3, 2018
    ...for a breach of this duty. In particular, "[a]t common law, a minor could not sue his or her parents in tort." Haddrill v. Damon , 149 Mich. App. 702, 705, 386 N.W.2d 643 (1986). The Michigan Supreme Court generally abolished intra-family tort immunity in Plumley v. Klein , 388 Mich. 1, 8, ......
  • Brunner v. Hutchinson Div. Lear-Siegler, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • March 15, 1991
    ...diving into the pool. McCallister v. Sun Valley Pools, Inc., 100 Mich.App. 131, 298 N.W.2d 687, 691 (1980); Haddrill v. Damon, 149 Mich.App. 702, 386 N.W.2d 643 (1986) (a parent may determine in the exercise of reasonable parental authority that a child may or may not ride a dirt bike). It ......
  • Dubay v. Irish
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • May 17, 1988
    ...his or her well being." Paige v. Bing Construction Co., 61 Mich.App. 480, 484, 233 N.W.2d 46 (1975); see also Haddrill v. Damon, 149 Mich.App. 702, 706-707, 386 N.W.2d 643 (1986).5 See Hebel v. Hebel, 435 P.2d 8, 14 (Alaska 1967); Sandoval v. Sandoval, 128 Ariz. 11, 13-14, 623 P.2d 800 (198......
  • Liang v. Guang Hui Liang
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • May 16, 2019
    ...App. 800, 803, 351 N.W.2d 868 (1984), and a child injured himself on a dirt bike given to him by his father, Haddrill v. Damon , 149 Mich. App. 702, 703-704, 386 N.W.2d 643 (1986). We see no meaningful distinction between the cases cited above and the circumstances and claims at issue here.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT