Nolechek v. Gesuale, 46 N.Y.2d 332 (1978)

A parent owes a duty to third parties to shield them from harm resulting from an infant child’s improvident use of a dangerous instrument, especially when the parent is aware of and capable of controlling its use; a third-party tortfeasor may seek contribution from the parent based on the parent’s negligent entrustment.

Summary

Walter Nolechek sued Gesuale and Star Sand & Gravel for the wrongful death of his son, Scott, who died in a motorcycle accident. Gesuale counterclaimed, alleging the father was negligent in providing his vision-impaired son with a motorcycle. The Appellate Division dismissed the counterclaim and Nolechek’s third-party complaint against a friend of his son. The New York Court of Appeals modified the order, reinstating the counterclaim. The court held that while a child cannot sue a parent for negligent supervision, a parent has a duty to protect third parties from harm caused by the child’s misuse of a dangerous instrument, especially if the parent knows and can control the use. A third party may seek contribution from the parent.

Facts

Scott Nolechek, 16, was blind in one eye and had impaired vision in the other. His father, Walter Nolechek, bought him a motorcycle. Scott did not have a driver’s license, and the motorcycle was unregistered and uninspected. Scott was riding a friend’s motorcycle (having switched just before the accident) on Lawrence Road when he struck a steel cable suspended across the road, resulting in his death. The cable had been in place for an extended period and was used by Gesuale and Star Sand & Gravel Co. to close off the road.

Procedural History

Walter Nolechek sued Gesuale and Star, among others, for negligence. Gesuale counterclaimed, alleging the father was negligent in providing the motorcycle. Nolechek filed a third-party complaint against James and Paul Neiman, the friend and his father. Special Term denied motions to dismiss the counterclaim and third-party complaint. The Appellate Division reversed and dismissed the counterclaim and third-party complaint. Gesuale and Nolechek appealed to the Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether an alleged tortfeasor, liable for injuries to an infant, can seek indemnity or contribution from the injured child’s parent when the injury resulted from the parent’s negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to the child?

Holding

Yes, because a parent owes a duty to third parties to protect them from harm resulting from a child’s improvident use of a dangerous instrument, especially when the parent is aware of and capable of controlling its use.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from Holodook v. Spencer, which held that a child cannot sue a parent for negligent supervision. While deciding when to allow a child to use a potentially dangerous item is a matter of parental supervision, this case involves the parent’s duty to third parties. The court reasoned that parents have a duty to protect third parties from foreseeable harm resulting from their children’s improvident use of dangerous instruments. The court stated, “It was not necessary that the defendant should have had notice of the particular method in which an accident would occur, if the possibility of an accident was clear to the ordinarily prudent eye.” The court emphasized that intrafamilial considerations are subordinated to the policy interests of protecting third parties from harm. The court found that permitting the counterclaim does not unduly disrupt family harmony, especially as the child is deceased. However, the third-party claim against the Neimans was dismissed because the motorcycle exchange was not a proximate cause of the accident.