127 So. 3d 1178
Ala.2013Background
- On July 2, 2004, Cody (14) and Trace (15), along with Jay (14), were at the Beddingfield lake house with no adult supervision when bottle rockets were found on a back porch.
- The fireworks were not purchased by any adult present; Jeff, Lisa's husband, was the only adult nearby and was preoccupied with barbecue duties.
- Trace was struck in the left eye by a bottle rocket fired by Cody during an hour-long fireworks activity; Trace suffered permanent vision loss and significant medical costs.
- Trace and his father brought suit in Madison County, alleging negligence, wantonness, assault, and strict liability against Cody, and negligent/wanton supervision and entrustment against Larry and Becky.
- The trial court granted JML on wanton entrustment against Larry/Becky, denied JML on Cody’s strict liability claim, and the jury found for Trace on all claims with $600,000 in compensatory damages and no punitive damages.
- On appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court reverses in part: Larry/Becky get judgment in their favor on negligent entrustment, negligent supervision, and wanton supervision; Cody gets judgment in his favor on the strict-liability claim and the case is remanded for a new trial on remaining Cody claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Negligent entrustment elements | Trace: entrustment to an incompetent with knowledge by parents. | Larry/Becky: no evidence of entrustment or incompetence; parents not liable. | Larry/Becky entitled to JML; no negligent entrustment shown. |
| Negligent/wanton supervision by parents | Trace: parents failed to supervise Cody, causing harm. | Standards do not recognize negligent supervision by parents; no habitual misconduct by Cody; no knowledge by parents. | Larry/Becky entitled to JML; no cognizable negligent/wanton supervision under Alabama law. |
| Strict liability for use of fireworks | Use of explosives is abnormally dangerous; strict liability applicable to Trace’s injuries. | Ordinary consumer fireworks not abnormally dangerous; jury should decide; not proper for strict liability. | Cody entitled to JML on strict-liability claim; no abnormally dangerous activity proven; remand for new trial on other claims. |
| JML/reversal and remand scope | If any claim supported, jury verdict should stand on those claims. | Court should grant JML where evidence insufficient or improper to submit to jury. | Judgment reversed in part; remanded for new trial on remaining Cody claims; judgment for Larry/Becky on entrustment and supervision; Cody’s strict-liability claim affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. Valentine, 926 So.2d 315 (Ala.2005) (negligent entrustment framework for Restatement § 390 adopted)
- Standifer v. Pate, 291 Ala. 434, 282 So.2d 261 (Ala.1973) (negligent supervision recognized in some contexts)
- Aspinwall v. Gowens, 405 So.2d 134 (Ala.1981) (multiple-count verdict requires directed verdict challenge to avoid general verdict ambiguity)
- Harper v. Regency Development Co., 399 So.2d 248 (Ala.1981) (strict liability limits; abnormally dangerous activity analysis)
- Waddell & Reed, Inc. v. United Investors Life Ins. Co., 875 So.2d 1143 (Ala.2003) (standard for reviewing motions for JML)
- Mason v. New, 475 So.2d 854 (Ala.1985) (elements of negligent entrustment)
- Land v. Niehaus, 340 So.2d 760 (Ala.1976) (statutory and common-law context for negligent supervision)
- McCauley v. Wood, 2 N.J.L. 86 (N.J.1806) (common-law rule that parents are not vicariously liable for children)