Langford v. Shu - 258 N.C. 135, 128 S.E.2d 210 (1962)

Rule:

North Carolina is in full accord with the common-law rule that the mere relation of parent and child imposes on the parent no liability for the torts of the child. The parent is not liable merely because the child lives at home with him and is under his care and control. Apart from the parent's own negligence, liability exists only where the tortious act is done by the child as the servant or agent of the parent, or where the act is consented to or ratified by the parent. A parent is liable for the act of his child if the parent's conduct was such as to render his own negligence a proximate cause of the injury complained of. In such a case the parent's liability is based on the ordinary rules of negligence and not upon the relation of parent and child. Furthermore, a parent may be liable for the consequences of failure to exercise the power of control which he has over his children, where he knows, or in the exercise of due care should have known, that injury to another is a probable consequence. Failure to restrain the child amounts to a sanction of or consent to his acts by the parent. As in all negligence cases, the issue in the last analysis is whether the parent exercised reasonable care under all the circumstances

Facts:

Defendant told plaintiff that a box labeled "danger" contained a snake-eating mongoose, which in reality was a practical joke that contained only a fox tail. As plaintiff was leaving defendant's home, defendant's children released the spring on the box and plaintiff was injured in her attempt to escape. Plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant to recover damages for personal injuries she sustained from the practical joke. The trial court granted defendant's motion for nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's evidence. Plaintiff sought review of the court’s decision. 

Issue:

Could defendant be held liable for the act of her children who released the furry object which frightened plaintiff into precipitous flight and caused her injury? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court found that defendant owed to plaintiff the duty not to subject her to a fright which, in the exercise of due care or reasonable foresight, she should have known was likely to result in some injury. The court also found that defendant could be held liable for her children's act of releasing the furry object that frightened plaintiff into flight because defendant's conduct was such as to render her own negligence a proximate cause of the injury. The court reversed the judgment of nonsuit and held that the evidence made out a case for the jury because there was evidence that defendant approved and participated in the joke, that defendant knew plaintiff was afraid of snakes, and that defendant could have reasonably foreseen the consequences of perpetrating the joke on plaintiff.