## Facts

- Jeremiah Brunner, age 2½, lived on his family farm near Vale, South Dakota.
- While his mother was ill, Jeremiah was with his father, Brad Brunner, during farm work involving a mechanical grain auger used to unload corn from a storage bin.
- Brad brought Jeremiah to the grain bin, told him to stay in the truck, started the auger, and entered the bin to transfer grain.
- Brad later found Jeremiah near the auger with his right hand traumatically amputated.
- Laurie Brunner sued the auger’s manufacturer, Hutchinson Division, Lear-Siegler, Inc. (Lear-Siegler), for damages on her own behalf and as Jeremiah’s guardian ad litem.
- Lear-Siegler filed a third-party complaint against Brad Brunner and H.L. Brunner & Sons (a farm partnership), seeking indemnity and/or contribution based on alleged negligence, including negligent supervision.
- The third-party defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the parental-immunity/parental-privilege doctrine barred any contribution claim predicated on negligent supervision.

## Issues

1. Under South Dakota law, may a product manufacturer sued for a child’s injuries obtain contribution or indemnity from the child’s parent and the parent’s partnership based on alleged negligent supervision?
2. Does South Dakota recognize a broad parental-immunity doctrine, or a narrower parental privilege, and what effect does that have on third-party contribution claims?

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Brad Brunner and H.L. Brunner & Sons on Lear-Siegler’s third-party claims.
- The court rejected a blanket parental-immunity doctrine as the governing rule, but adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895G approach recognizing limited parental privileges.
- The court held that negligent supervision falls within the protected area of parental authority and discretion and is not a cognizable basis for civil liability under South Dakota law in this context.
- Because contribution requires the third-party defendant to be liable to the plaintiff, Lear-Siegler could not obtain contribution or indemnity from the parent or partnership for conduct for which they owed no actionable tort liability to Jeremiah.
- The ruling did not resolve the underlying products-liability action against Lear-Siegler.

## Legal Principles

- South Dakota law, as applied by the court, does not impose a categorical parental immunity from suits by children; instead, it recognizes limited parental privileges consistent with Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895G.
- A parent is privileged from liability for conduct that constitutes an exercise of parental authority and discretion, including ordinary decisions about a child’s supervision.
- A third-party tortfeasor’s contribution claim fails if the proposed contributor is not legally liable to the injured plaintiff for the alleged conduct.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the legal framework forecloses liability as a matter of law, eliminating an essential predicate for contribution or indemnity.

## Conclusion

The court adopted Restatement § 895G’s limited parental-privilege framework and held that alleged negligent supervision is privileged parental conduct not actionable under South Dakota law in this setting; therefore, Lear-Siegler could not seek contribution or indemnity from Jeremiah’s father or the family partnership, and the third-party claims were dismissed on summary judgment.


Brunner v. Hutchinson Div., Lear-Siegler, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 517 (D.S.D. 1991)