Lanterman v. Wilson, 149

• Decision Date: 07 April 1976
• Docket Number: No. 149,149
• Citation: 354 A.2d 432,277 Md. 364
• Parties: John V. LANTERMAN v. Wayne Merle WILSON, Jr., et ux.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 364

277 Md. 364

354 A.2d 432

John V. LANTERMAN v. Wayne Merle WILSON, Jr., et ux.

No. 149.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

April 7, 1976.

Charles Michael Tobin, Rockville, for appellant.

Elbert R. Shore, Jr. and John T. Bell, Rockville (Frank S. Cornelius and Bell & Cornelius, Rockville, on the brief), for appellees.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and O'DONNELL, ^* JJ.

MURPHY, Chief Judge.

On June 28, 1972, Michael Wilson (Michael), then 19 years of age, and the son of Wayne and Beverly Wilson (the Wilsons), broke into the Montgomery County residence of John Lanterman during his absence, ransacked its contents and stole a number of valuable items of personal property. Lanterman sued both Michael and his parents in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County to recover damages which he sustained as a result of the burglary. In one count of his declaration, Lanterman charged that the Wilsons were legally responsibile for Michael's conduct in committing the burglary; the count alleged that the Wilsons had prior knowledge that Michael had repeatedly committed wanton and wilful acts of a similar nature which indicated his 'dangerous tendencies and mischievous disposition' and that by failing to control their minor son, the Wilsons 'acquiesced' in the burglary and failed in their duty 'to prevent or provide medical attention to . . . (Michael) which would have averted the injury and damage done . . ..'

At the trial, Lanterman adduced evidence showing that six weeks prior to the burglary, Michael had been released on probation from the Montgomery County Detention Center; that while he had not lived with his parents for more than six or seven weeks in the preceding year and a half, he was at the time of the burglary living at home and was supported by his parents; and that Mr. Wilson acknowledged that he could control his son and had subjected him to the 'rules' of the Wilson home.

Lanterman adduced evidence showing that Michael, in company with another youth, went to the Lanterman home in the early morning hours of June 28, 1972, gained entrance by breaking a window and over a period of several hours entered every room in the house, ransacking drawers and a cabinet, and stole a number of items of valuable personal property, including a stereo music system, a large quantity of liquor, and a variety of guns, knives, and swords. There was evidence showing that the Lanterman residence was approximately four blocks from the Wilson home and that Michael utilized the Wilson family automobile in carrying the stolen property away.

Other evidence adduced by Lanterman at the trial showed that prior to the burglary, Mrs. Wilson acknowledged to Mrs. Lanterman that Michael was 'sick' and needed help and that although she had repeatedly so told her husband, he disagreed with her. There was testimony from a psychiatrist, Dr. Irving Berman, who examined Michael three years after the burglary for the purpose of testifying at the trial on Lanterman's behalf, that Michael had suffered from a passive aggressive personality disorder at least since the age of 15; that the condition first manifested itself when Michael 'started hooking school and running away from home'; and that the condition was then clinically treatable.

Lanterman sought to elicit other testimony from the psychiatrist to prove that Michael's condition could have been alleviated by treatment; that there was a direct causal relationship between Michael's untreated personality disorder and the Lanterman burglary; that had Michael been given psychiatric treatment, the burglary would not have occurred; that Michael was of the impression that his parents induced or approved of his conduct; that Michael would understand passivity from his parents to constitute approval of his continuing antisocial conduct; that Michael's conduct would have been different had he been subjected to psychotherapy; and that the Wilsons should have been able to foresee, in the absence of treatment, a continuation of Michael's mischievous behavior.

The trial court (Mathias, J.) sustained objections to this line of inquiry; it ruled that only evidence that tended to show either that the Wilsons 'induced or approved the act of burglary or that their son was acting as their servant and agent at the commission of the act of burglary' would be admissible in evidence to establish the Wilsons' liability for Michael's act. The court also ruled that the psychiatrist's proffered testimony with respect to the impression Michael communicated to him at the time of his examination, namely, that his parents approved or induced his conduct, was, as to the Wilsons, inadmissible hearsay. Dr. Berman was nevertheless permitted to answer the direct question whether Michael actually told him that his parents induced him to commit the burglary; he said:

'. . . If parents take things lightly, then the things he does is antisocial. I think very often a child takes the view that this is all right to do, but that is on a concious level. They would repeat that sort of thing.'

The trial court also excluded from evidence testimony proffered by Lanterman to show that the Wilsons had received notice from Michael's schools that he had performed poorly in both conduct and in his studies; that he was often truant and had to be transferred from one school to another; that the Wilsons knew, prior to the Lanterman burglary, that Michael had been charged with shoplifting and receiving stolen goods, had been convicted of being a rogue and vagabond, and was charged with violating probation; that Mrs. Wilson was unaware that Michael was living at home when the Lanterman incident occurred; and that Mr. Wilson had a master's degree in psychiatric social work.

At the conclusion of Lanterman's case, the trial court granted the Wilson's motion for a directed verdict and this appeal followed. ¹ We granted certiorari prior to argument in the Court of Special Appeals. Maryland Code (1974) Courts and Judicial Proceedings Article, § 12-203.

It is a well-recognized principle of the common law, firmly established in Maryland, that a parent is not ordinarily responsible for the wrongful act of his minor child, and that to charge the parent with such responsibility, it must be shown that he induced or approved of the act, or that the child's relationship to the parent at the time was that of servant or agent. Kerrigan v. Carroll, 168 Md. 682, 179 A. 53 (1935); Whitelock v. Dennis, 139 Md. 557, 116 A. 68 (1921); Matter of Sorrell, 20 Md.App. 179, 315 A.2d 110 (1974). Cases applying the common law principle are collected in an extensive annotation appearing in 54 A.L.R.3d 974 (1974).

Lanterman contends that the trial court took too narrow a view of Maryland law in limiting parental liability for intentional torts committed by a minor child to instances of inducement, approval, or agency. He urges that we look with favor upon those cases, collected at 54 A.L.R.3d, at 992-1001, holding that a parent may be liable for the consequences of a failure to exercise the power of control which he has over his minor child where he knows, or in the exercise of due care, should have known that injury to another was a probable consequence of such failure and the parent had knowledge of the vicious or destructive tendencies of the child but failed to ...