Lubitz v. Wells

Connecticut Superior Court · 1955 · Torts

Tortsnegligencedutyforeseeabilityreasonable personnegligenceparental liabilityduty

Facts

The complaint alleged that James Wells owned a golf club and left it lying on the ground in the backyard of his home for some time. His eleven-year-old son, while playing in the yard with the nine-year-old plaintiff, picked up the club and swung at a stone on the ground. In doing so, the son struck the plaintiff in the jaw and chin. As to the father, the complaint alleged he knew the club was in the yard, knew his children would play with it, and knew or should have known that negligent use of the club by children would injure a child, yet failed to remove it or warn his son against using it.

Issue

Whether the complaint stated a valid negligence claim against the father based on his leaving a golf club in the backyard where children might play with it and failing to remove it or caution his son against its use.

Rule

Leaving an object accessible to children does not constitute negligence merely because a child may use it and cause injury; liability requires that the object be so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it would be negligent to leave it lying where children may play with it.

🔒

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 Columbus, Ohio, Martin Keene left a wooden baseball bat on the grass behind his house for several days. He knew his twelve-year-old son and neighboring children often played there, and one afternoon his son picked up the bat, took a practice swing, and hit eight-year-old Lena Ortiz in the face.

Lena sues Martin for negligence, alleging he knew children would play with the bat and should have known careless use could injure a child. Under the governing rule, Martin is most likely:

Explanation. The majority rule is narrow: liability does not arise merely because a parent leaves an object where children may use it and injure someone. The object must be so obviously and intrinsically dangerous that it is negligent to leave it there. A baseball bat, like other ordinary sporting equipment, is not treated as such an object on these allegations. The opinion also rejects the idea that foreseeability allegations alone suffice.