Facts
- Seventeen-year-old Brandon Neel helped his father, David Edward Evans, and his aunt, Tina McLean, clean out the home of Neel’s step-grandmother, Beverly Carolyn Sewell, in Monroe County, Michigan.
- To dispose of accumulated trash, the group started a fire in Sewell’s backyard and began burning bags of debris.
- Neel testified he believed starting the fire was his father’s idea and that the fire was started by either his father or his aunt.
- While tending the fire, Neel saw a bullet on the ground. After he told his aunt, she sent other children inside the house, and Neel and his aunt began inspecting the contents of additional trash bags before placing them on the fire.
- When a bag of trash was placed on the fire, an item believed to be an aerosol can exploded, causing Neel to suffer severe burns to his face and arms; he received medical treatment, including care at the University of Michigan Hospital.
- Neel sued Evans and Sewell in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking damages for physical and emotional injuries.
- As to Evans, Neel alleged negligent supervision: Evans allegedly failed to institute and maintain adequate standards for safe disposal of flammable materials and failed to warn or instruct Neel about safe procedures.
- Evans moved for summary judgment, arguing Michigan’s parental (family) immunity doctrine barred a child’s negligent-supervision claim against a parent.
Issues
- Whether Michigan’s parental (family) immunity doctrine bars a child’s negligence claim against a parent when the claim is based on alleged negligent supervision during a family activity that resulted in injury.
- Whether the challenged conduct fits within the remaining immunity recognized in Plumley v. Klein for an exercise of reasonable parental authority (or parental discretion in providing care), making summary judgment proper.
Decision
- The court granted Evans’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held Michigan’s parental immunity doctrine barred Neel’s negligent-supervision claim against his father because the allegations concerned the father’s supervision and control of his child during a family activity.
- The ruling addressed Evans’s motion and did not finally resolve Neel’s separate claims against Sewell.
Legal Principles
- Michigan does not recognize blanket parental immunity; instead, under Plumley v. Klein, a child may generally sue a parent for ordinary negligence, subject to limited retained immunity.
- Retained immunity covers: (1) an exercise of reasonable parental authority over the child, and (2) an exercise of reasonable parental discretion regarding provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care.
- Claims alleging negligent supervision commonly challenge parental direction, warnings, and oversight in a parent-child setting, and therefore fall within the “reasonable parental authority” category when the parent is acting as a parent rather than in a separate role.
- When the material facts are not genuinely disputed and the claim, as pleaded, falls within a retained-immunity category, the immunity question may be resolved as a matter of law on summary judgment.
Conclusion
Because Neel’s theory against his father was framed as negligent supervision—faulting Evans for the manner in which he directed, warned, and supervised his teenage son during the trash-burning activity—the court treated the claim as one attacking an exercise of parental authority and held it barred by Michigan’s qualified parental immunity doctrine, entitling Evans to summary judgment.