Kellermann v. McDonough

Summary

The Supreme Court of Virginia held that when a parent relinquishes supervision and care of a child to an adult who agrees to assume that responsibility, the adult owes a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care, though the adult is not an insurer of the child's safety. The Court also recognized an assumption-of-duty claim against Paula McDonough, but not against Paul McDonough, and held that the alleged conduct of the teenage driver was not necessarily a superseding cause as a matter of law. The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Holdings

1. When a parent relinquishes supervision and care of a child to an adult who agrees to supervise and care for the child, the adult must exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would exercise under similar circumstances, although the adult is not an insurer of the child's safety.
2. The complaint stated a cognizable tort claim against Paula McDonough because her agreement to comply with the specific instruction that Jaimee not ride with inexperienced or young male drivers constituted an undertaking to exercise reasonable care in performing that undertaking.
3. The complaint failed to state an assumption-of-duty claim against Paul McDonough because it contained no allegations that he affirmatively undertook a duty to protect Jaimee from inexperienced or young male drivers.
4. The McDonoughs did not have a special relationship with Jaimee that imposed a duty to protect her from the criminal or wrongful acts of third parties.
5. The driver's conduct was not, as a matter of law, a superseding cause that barred liability; a jury could find that the McDonoughs' alleged negligence was also a proximate cause of Jaimee's death.
6. Kellermann preserved his argument that the McDonoughs owed a common-law duty of care because he raised the issue in the circuit court and did not abandon it.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an adult who agrees to supervise and care for a child after the child's parent relinquishes supervision owes the child a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care.
2. Whether Paula McDonough's agreement to comply with the parent's specific transportation instruction stated a claim based on assumption of duty.
3. Whether Paul McDonough could be liable under an assumption-of-duty theory despite not being present when Paula made the undertaking.
4. Whether a special relationship imposed on the McDonoughs a duty to protect Jaimee from the criminal or wrongful acts of a third party.
5. Whether the driver's conduct was, as a matter of law, the sole proximate cause of Jaimee's death.
6. Whether Kellermann preserved his common-law-duty argument for appellate review.

Disposition

other