Wagner by Griffith v. Smith

• Decision Date: 23 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 69026,69026
• Parties: Peter WAGNER, By His Next Friend, D. Burt GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. A.O. SMITH, Skyline Harvestore Systems, Inc., and Galen Wagner, Appellees.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 255

340 N.W.2d 255

Peter WAGNER, By His Next Friend, D. Burt GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. A.O. SMITH, Skyline Harvestore Systems, Inc., and Galen Wagner, Appellees.

No. 69026.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 23, 1983.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1983.

Alfred A. Beardmore, Charles City, for appellant.

Jon Stuart Scoles of Law Office of Warren L. De Vries, Mason City, for appellee Galen Wagner.

Considered en banc.

HARRIS, Justice.

In Turner v. Turner, 304 N.W.2d 786 (Iowa 1981), we abrogated the doctrine of absolute parental immunity in tort actions. In so doing we expressly reserved a question not then presented. Should immunity continue to exist in areas of parental authority and discretion? The facts here require us to decide the question. The trial court determined that the father here cannot be held liable on his four year-old son's claim of negligent supervision and dismissed such a claim against him. We affirm.

The challenged ruling was upon an application for adjudication of law points. We state the facts which the parties regard as uncontroverted. Defendant Galen Wagner is a farmer who owns several silos manufactured and distributed by the other defendants. Claims against the other defendants are not involved in this appeal. Corn is unloaded from the bottom center of these silos through a grain auger. When the silo is nearly empty it is necessary for someone to enter it and shovel the remaining corn into the auger while it is operating.

On May 28, 1981, Wagner and his thirteen year-old nephew, Scott, were emptying one of the silos. When the silo was almost empty Wagner sent Scott in to shovel the remaining corn into the operating auger. While working outside the silo, Wagner allowed his four year-old son, Peter, to enter the silo and join Scott. After ten or fifteen minutes Peter's leg somehow became entangled in the auger. Scott managed to pull Peter out of the auger but not before it amputated Peter's leg a few inches below the hip.

Through a next friend Peter sued his father in tort, alleging his father had a duty to exercise due care for him and that "he did not do what an ordinarily reasonably prudent person--taking into account the parent-child relationship--would have done under similar circumstances...." After appearing, defendant Wagner filed the application which precipitated the ruling. Without deciding whether the trial court's ruling was final we granted permission for the appeal pursuant to Iowa rules of appellate procedure 1(c) and (2).

The question is one of policy. Policy considerations on the general subject of parental immunity were presented for both sides of the question in our majority and dissenting opinions in Turner. Obviously there was, and is, much to be said for both sides of the question.

It is the fundamental premise of tort law that the allowance of money damages in a proper case is in the public interest. Society feels impelled to allow for tort recoveries both to redress certain wrongs and to "engineer" social conduct. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 3 (4th ed. 1971). We must decide whether the public interest, especially the best interests of children, would be better served by allowing a right of action against parents who negligently supervise their children.

On the one hand, from an injured child's point of view, the loss is just as real as if it would have been caused by a stranger. On the other hand, parental immunity has been supported in the belief that it enures to the ultimate benefit of the family and the child.

In Turner we listed seven justifications which had been advanced in support of immunity: (1) the danger of a parent later inheriting from the child for the parent's own negligence; (2) the drain on family funds; (3) the analogy to interspousal immunity; (4) the immunity of domestic government; (5) the danger of fraud; (6) the disruption of domestic tranquility; and (7) the need for parental discipline and control. See Turner, 304 N.W.2d at 787 (quoting from Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713, 716, 156 N.W.2d 105, 107 (1968)). We said: "[f]orceful arguments have been advanced for retaining the doctrine, based on the 'domestic government' and 'parental discipline and control' concepts." Id. Notwithstanding the force of these arguments, they were insufficient to justify retention of the doctrine of absolute parental immunity. The question here is whether they are sufficient to justify retention of any of the doctrine. We think they are.

The rule we adopt is similar to that stated by the Wisconsin supreme court in Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402, 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963). We hold that a parent is immune from liability for alleged negligent acts emanating from the parent-child relationship if the act involves an exercise of: (1) parental authority over the child; or (2) parental discretion in respect to the provision of food, clothing, shelter, education, medical and dental services, and other care. Cf. id., 20 Wis.2d at 413, 122 N.W.2d at 198; Annot., 6 A.L.R. 4th 1066, 1132-42 (1981). The Goller rule clearly is not without its critics. See 31 Drake L.Rev. 948, 953 (1981-82); Note, The Reasonable Parent Standard: An...