MEMORANDUM ORDER
This divеrsity case is presently before the court upon the motions of plaintiff, James Bell, and third-party defendant, Linda Bell (Mrs. James L.), for summary judgment in connection with a counterclaim and a third-party claim against them.
*258 James Bell brought this action on his own behalf аnd on behalf of his 10-year-old son, John Alan Bell, for personal injuries and medical expenses incurred when Alan sustained sulphuric аcid burns while playing near a trash container on the premises of the Essex Square Apartments on August 8, 1973. The Bells were residing at the apartment complex at the time these injuries occurred.
While there may be some dispute as to the exact mannеr in which Alan Bell sustained his injuries, for the purpose of this motion it is agreed that either Richard Wands, a third-party defendant, or Alan Bell removed a one-gallon container of sulphuric acid from the large trash container and that Richard Wands either threw the container at or to the Bell boy. The container of sulphuric acid that splashed upon Alan was one of twelve which the resident manager of the apartment complex, Nellie Rohe, had deposited in the trash container earliеr. Plaintiff’s claim against the owner Paul Schwartz and the resident manager is based upon the defendants’ alleged creation of an unreasonably dangerous condition.
Defendants filed third-party actions against Richard Wands, his parents, and Linda Bell, as well аs a counterclaim against James Bell. The counterclaim against plaintiff and the third-party claim against his wife allege nеgligence on their part. The sole basis for defendant’s claim of negligence on the part of Alan Bell’s parents is their аlleged failure to supervise, instruct, and control their son, Alan Bell.
Mr. and Mrs. Bell now move for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R. Civ.P., contending that the counterclaim and third-party action against them are barred by the doctrine of parent-child immunity. Although material facts remain in dispute, the court assumes, for the purpose of this motion, that the Bells were negligent in the supervision of their son. The court must then decide whether, as a matter of law, Mr. and Mrs. Bell are immune from liability under such circumstances.
Because this is a diversity action, Minnesota law controls.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins,
(1) [W]here the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of reasonable parental authority over the child; and
(2) [W]here the alleged negligent act involves an exercisе of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental servicеs, and other care Id. at 439,161 N.W.2d at 638 .
This court is unable to determine from the language of Silesky whether or not negligent parental supervision is an “exercise of reasonable parental authority” or “an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of housing . . . [or] other care.” The Minnesota Supreme Court apparently has not addressed the precise issue now before the court, whether parents are liable to their children for the injuries resulting from negligent supervision. Therefore, this court must predict what the deсision of the Minnesota Supreme Court will be when faced with this issue.
Without a Minnesota decision on point, defendants suggest that deсisions of the Wisconsin Supreme Court are secondary authority as to what the law in Minnesota is or should be with respect to this issue. When the Minnesota Supreme Court abrogated the parent-child immunity doctrine in
Silesky,
it was apparently strongly influenced by the decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court which previously had abrogated the doctrine. Indeed, the Minnesota Court adopted thе identical language of
Goller v. White,
*259
In
Cole v. Sears Roebuck & Co.,
Plaintiff and third-party defendant Bell contend, however, that the recent Miсhigan decision of
Paige v. Bing Construction Co.,
This court finds the reasoning of Paige persuasive. As the Court in Paige noted:
A parent’s exercise of authority over his or hеr child involves more than discipline. It includes the providing of instruction and education so that a child may be aware of dangers to his or her well being. We find it impossible to separate such general phenomena as authority and supervision. In order to adequately supervise a child, every parent knows that some amount of discipline is inextricably involved. The right to exercise authority over a child certainly includes the responsibility to supervise that child’s behavior. Paige v. Bing Construction Co.,61 Mich.App. at 486 ,233 N.W.2d at 48-49 (1975).
This court concludes that the Minnеsota Supreme Court would rule that the “parental authority” exception to the abrogation of parent-child immunity extends to negligent parental supervision. Thus the motion of plaintiff James Bell and third-party defendant Linda Bell for summary judgment with respeсt to the counterclaim and the third-party claim against them will be granted.
The court appreciates the assistance of both counsel in the form of well-reasoned briefs and candid oral arguments.
Upon the foregoing,
IT IS ORDERED That the counterclaim against James Bell and the third-party claim against Linda Bell be dismissed.