## Facts

- J.R. was the father of N.R., a 14-year-old boy.
- J.R. had joint legal custody of N.R. but was the noncustodial parent.
- J.R. gave N.R. a BB gun and permitted N.R. to take it to his mother’s house.
- While at his mother’s house, N.R. negligently shot A.H., a 13-year-old boy, in the abdomen, perforating A.H.’s liver and colon.
- A.H.’s parents sued N.R. and J.R. for negligence, seeking to hold J.R. responsible under a parental-liability theory based on J.R.’s own conduct in providing the BB gun and allowing N.R. to possess it away from J.R.’s supervision.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of J.R., and the case proceeded to trial against N.R.
- A jury found N.R. liable and awarded A.H.’s parents $4,625 in damages.
- After trial and entry of judgment, A.H.’s parents appealed the earlier summary-judgment ruling; the intermediate appellate court reversed the summary-judgment order.
- J.R. sought review in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. After entry of a final judgment following trial, does a notice of appeal from that final judgment permit appellate review of earlier interlocutory orders—such as an order granting summary judgment to one defendant—that became final only upon the later entry of judgment?
2. On the merits, may a noncustodial parent with joint legal custody be held liable in negligence to a third party for injuries caused when the parent’s child negligently used a BB gun at the custodial parent’s home, where the noncustodial parent had provided the BB gun and allowed the child to take it there?

## Decision

- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that an appeal taken from the final judgment after trial brings up for review prior nonfinal orders that produced the judgment, including an earlier order granting summary judgment.
- On the negligence claim against J.R., the Court held that summary judgment for J.R. was proper on this record and that J.R. could not be held liable to A.H.’s family under the asserted parental-liability theory.
- Disposition: the Court reversed the intermediate appellate court’s decision that had set aside the summary judgment and reinstated the trial court’s summary-judgment ruling in favor of J.R.

## Legal Principles

- A notice of appeal from a final judgment permits review of earlier interlocutory orders that became reviewable only upon entry of the final judgment; separate appeals from each earlier nonfinal order are not required once a final judgment is entered.
- An order granting summary judgment generally is not immediately appealable as a final order when claims against other parties remain; it becomes reviewable when a final judgment disposing of the case is entered and appealed.
- Pennsylvania does not impose automatic vicarious liability on a parent for a child’s tort; parental liability requires proof of the parent’s own negligence and a duty recognized by law.
- In assessing parental negligence in circumstances involving a child’s conduct, courts focus on the parent’s ability to control the child and the foreseeability of harm tied to the parent’s own acts or omissions; a noncustodial parent’s limited control may defeat a duty-based claim on particular facts.

## Conclusion

K.H. v. J.R. is a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision arising from a BB-gun injury caused by a 14-year-old child, in which the Court confirmed that an appeal from a final judgment after trial allows review of earlier nonfinal orders, including summary judgment, and ultimately reinstated summary judgment for the noncustodial father because the plaintiffs did not establish a viable negligence basis to impose parental liability on him under the circumstances presented.


K.H. v. J.R., 826 A.2d 863 (2003)