Broadbent v. Broadbent

1995

Venue: AZ SC
Facts: Defendant is watching her own son swimming in the pool, but leaves to answer the phone. When she comes back, he's on the bottom of the pool, and he's got severe brain damage. Father sues as conservator of son.
Posture: Dismissed at trial, dismissal affirmed on appeal.
Issue: Does parental immunity bar this suit?
Holding: No. Remanded to trial.
Rule: A parent is not immune to tort liability towards his or her children solely by virtue of the relationshup. Parents are not liable if they acted as a reasonable and prudent parent in the situation would have.
Reasoning: Because we thought children needed so much discipline, we used to immunize parents against lawsuits by their kids. We've been chipping away against parental immunity over the years: first killing by stabbing and thrusting were prohibited, then negligence (except where the alleged negligent act was an exercise of parental authority). There were some reasons for this:
  1. Not wanting to disturb domestic tranquility
  2. The danger of fraud and collusion in such suits
  3. Awarding damages to children will deplete family resources
  4. If the child predeceases the parents, the parents could inherit the damage award anyway
  5. Not wanting to interfere with parental discipline and control
None of those reasons is as compelling as the need to protect children: injuries are more disruptive than lawsuits. And really, this stuff is just about insurance: family resources are not at stake. Also, parental discretion is not absolute. Parents owe a parental duty to their children.

So the real question here is whether a reasonable and prudent parent would have left a 2.5-year-old unattended by the pool. That determination will require a trial.

Dicta: