Rios v. Smith, 95 N.Y.2d 647 (2001)
A parent may be liable for negligently entrusting a dangerous instrument to their child if the parent knew or should have known that the child’s use of the instrument could create an unreasonable risk of harm to others, even if the child allows a third party to use the instrument.
Summary
Desiree Rios sued Theodore Persico, Jr., among others, for injuries sustained while riding an ATV driven by Frank Smith, Jr. Rios was injured when the ATV Smith was driving crashed into a tree. The claim against Persico, Sr. was for negligent entrustment, alleging he negligently allowed his son to use the ATV, which was then used by Smith. The New York Court of Appeals held that Persico, Sr. could be liable for negligently entrusting the ATVs to his son, even though the injury occurred while a third party (Smith) was operating the vehicle, because Persico, Sr. was aware that his sons shared the ATV with friends. The Court found that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to determine that Persico, Sr. created an unreasonable risk of harm.
Facts
In 1983, Desiree Rios, then 17, accompanied her sister to a farm owned by Alphonse Persico. Theodore Persico, Jr., Persico’s son, also 17, owned two ATVs kept at the farm. On the day of the accident, Persico, Jr. and Frank Smith, Jr., each operating an ATV, invited Rios and her sister for a ride. Rios rode with Smith. While racing, Smith drove the ATV off a path and crashed into a tree, causing severe injuries to Rios. Persico, Sr. was not present at the farm on the day of the accident. Persico, Sr. was aware his sons used the ATVs with passengers and performed “wheelies.” He did not restrict his sons’ ATV use or their ability to lend them to others.
Procedural History
Rios sued Persico, Sr. for negligent entrustment. The jury found Persico, Sr. 35% at fault. The trial court denied Persico’s motion to set aside the verdict on liability. The Appellate Division upheld the liability finding but reduced the damages award. The New York Court of Appeals granted Persico leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a parent can be liable for negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to their child when a third party is injured while using the instrument with the child’s permission?
Whether an ATV constitutes a dangerous instrument as a matter of law?
Holding
Yes, because a parent owes a duty to protect third parties from harm that is clearly foreseeable from the child’s improvident use or operation of a dangerous instrument, where such use is found to be subject to the parent’s control.
No, because under the particular facts and circumstances presented, the issue of whether the ATV was a dangerous instrument was a question of fact properly submitted for jury determination.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals relied on prior precedents, particularly Nolechek v. Gesuale and LaTorre v. Genesee Mgt., to reaffirm the principle that parents have a duty to protect third parties from harm resulting from a child’s improvident use of a dangerous instrument when the parent is aware of and capable of controlling its use. The court emphasized that Nolechek provides a “very specific and narrow complement to the predominant Holodook principle.”
The court rejected Persico’s argument that liability only applies when the child directly causes the harm, clarifying that the duty extends to foreseeable situations where the child allows a third party to use the instrument. Persico’s deposition testimony was critical. “His testimony revealed that he was aware that his sons had driven the ATVs in the past with passengers on the vehicles and it was likely that his sons had performed “wheelies” while riding the ATVs. He further acknowledged that Smith had probably driven one of the ATVs on prior occasions as he had been a frequent visitor to the farm. Pérsico admitted that he established no rules regarding his sons’ use of the ATVs, and did not limit his sons’ ability to lend the ATVs to others. The operation of the ATVs was not restricted to particular areas on the farm either.” The court found that, based on the evidence, Persico could have foreseen that his son would lend the ATV to a friend, creating a risk of harm to passengers. As to whether an ATV is a dangerous instrument, the court stated, “Whether a particular object qualifies as a dangerous instrument depends on the nature of the instrument and the facts pertaining to its use, including the particular attributes of the minor using or operating the item.” Because Persico knew his sons operated the vehicles with passengers and performed wheelies, it was proper for the trial court to submit the issue to the jury for resolution.