Langford v. Shu

Supreme Court of North Carolina · Torts

TortsNegligencePractical jokesParental liabilitypractical jokefrightforeseeabilitybodily harm

Facts

The defendant had a box labeled "Danger, African Mongoose, Live Snake Eater," designed to frighten viewers by releasing a fake mongoose-like object. She answered the plaintiff's questions about the box in a way that helped set up the prank, knowing the plaintiff was afraid of snakes and of the box's supposed contents. The defendant's eleven-year-old son released the object, causing the plaintiff to flee in fright and injure herself. The evidence, viewed favorably to the plaintiff, suggested the defendant approved of and participated in the prank and could have prevented her children from carrying it out.

Issue

Whether the evidence was sufficient to permit a jury to find the defendant liable for the plaintiff's injury caused by fright from a practical joke carried out by the defendant's child, where the defendant allegedly participated in or sanctioned the prank and should have foreseen some bodily injury.

Rule

A person owes a duty not to subject another to fright that, in the exercise of due care or reasonable foresight, the actor should know is likely to result in some injury. A parent is not liable merely because of the parent-child relationship, but may be liable when the child's tortious act is done as the parent's agent or servant, is consented to or ratified by the parent, or when the parent's own negligence in failing to control the child is a proximate cause of the injury because the parent knew or should have known injury was a probable consequence.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Asheville, Nora Kim showed her dinner guest, Elena Cruz, a sealed canister labeled "Live Bats—Do Not Open." Nora knew Elena had a severe fear of bats, and when Elena leaned in to inspect it, Nora pressed a hidden trigger that launched a soft foam bat toward Elena's face; Elena stumbled backward into a table and fractured her wrist.

If Elena sues Nora for negligence, which is the strongest argument that the case should go to the jury?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a person owes a duty not to subject another to fright which, in the exercise of due care or reasonable foresight, the actor should know is likely to result in some injury. Liability is not excused because the act was a practical joke, because there was no intent to injure, or because the harm followed from the fright response rather than direct impact. The plaintiff need show foreseeability of some bodily injury, not the precise injury that occurred. (Derived from Langford v. Shu (n.d.).)