Fowler v. Attenborough

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fowler v. Attenborough

124 A.D.2d 780, 508 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62099

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 24, 1986·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[781] The court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against the infant plaintiffs parents. The basis of the allegation of liability was not negligent supervision of their child (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35), but rather negligent supervision and control over the guests on their premises, some of whom were underage and drinking beer provided by the son of the third-party defendants. " '[A] child * * * has a viable cause of action against its parent[s] based on the parent[s’] negligent act which breaches a duty owed to the world at large’ ” (Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264, 266, quoting from Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157, 158); here, the duty owed is that of supervising and controlling infant guests (cf. Huyler v Rose, 88 AD2d 755). Thus, a third-party cause of action for contribution has been sufficiently stated to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[781] The court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against the infant plaintiffs parents. The basis of the allegation of liability was not negligent supervision of their child (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35), but rather negligent supervision and control over the guests on their premises, some of whom were underage and drinking beer provided by the son of the third-party defendants. " '[A] child * * * has a viable cause of action against its parent[s] based on the parent[s’] negligent act which breaches a duty owed to the world at large’ ” (Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264, 266, quoting from Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157, 158); here, the duty owed is that of supervising and controlling infant guests (cf. Huyler v Rose, 88 AD2d 755). Thus, a third-party cause of action for contribution has been sufficiently stated to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Fowler v. Attenborough, 124 A.D.2d 780, 508 N.Y.S.2d 499, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62099 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

124 A.D.2d 780 (Fowler v. Attenborough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related