## Facts

- Breeanna Anderson (23 months old) was injured when neighbor Edna Stream backed a car over Breeanna’s leg in a shared driveway between the families’ adjacent homes.
- Breeanna’s parents allowed her to play outside with instructions to “stay in the back,” while one parent read and the other did housework; neither witnessed the accident.
- Breeanna (through her father) sued the Streams for negligence.
- The Streams impleaded Breeanna’s parents for contribution/indemnity, alleging negligent parental supervision.
- In a consolidated appeal, Michael Nuessle (age three) was injured after his father lost sight of him during an errand; Michael walked into a crosswalk and was struck by a car, then sued his father for negligent supervision.
- Trial courts granted summary judgment against the claims premised on negligent supervision, treating them as barred by the residual parental-immunity exceptions recognized after Minnesota’s partial abrogation of parental immunity.

## Issues

1. Whether negligent parental supervision is categorically protected from tort liability under the surviving parental-immunity exceptions for parental authority and ordinary parental discretion.
2. Whether a third-party tortfeasor may seek contribution or indemnity from parents based on negligent supervision when the child’s claim against the parents is not categorically barred.

## Decision

- The Minnesota Supreme Court reversed the summary judgments in both consolidated cases and remanded.
- The court held that the residual parental-immunity exceptions must be construed narrowly.
- The court rejected a per se rule that all negligent-supervision claims fall within the protected categories of parental authority or ordinary parental discretion.
- Because negligent supervision is not automatically immune, both the child’s direct claim (Nuessle) and the third-party contribution/indemnity claim (Anderson) could proceed, subject to a fact-specific application of the exceptions.

## Legal Principles

- After Minnesota’s partial abrogation of parental immunity, immunity remains only for conduct within (1) parental authority over the child or (2) ordinary parental discretion in providing care, and these exceptions are narrowly construed.
- The label “negligent supervision” does not control; courts must examine the specific alleged conduct to determine whether it intrudes on protected parental authority/discretion.
- Summary judgment is improper where the application of the parental-immunity exceptions depends on factual characterization of the parental conduct.
- If the parents’ conduct is not immune under the narrow exceptions, ordinary contribution principles may permit allocation of fault to parents and contribution claims by third-party tortfeasors.

## Conclusion

The court limited the scope of surviving parental-immunity exceptions and held that negligent supervision is not categorically immune from liability, allowing fact-dependent litigation of both a child’s negligent-supervision claim against a parent and a third party’s contribution claim against parents.


Anderson v. Stream, 295 N.W.2d 595 (Minn. 1980)