## Facts

- Desiree Ridgell, a teacher’s assistant, worked with Connor McDermott, a minor student.
- On April 26, 2011, Connor allegedly wrestled Ridgell to the floor, held her down, and, as she tried to stand, kicked her in the head, causing her to fall and strike her head on a desk.
- Ridgell alleged Connor had previously engaged in repeated violent acts at school against her and others (including punching, grabbing, tackling, and kicking), and that some incidents caused serious injuries to employees and created fear of harm among students.
- Ridgell alleged Connor’s parents, Mark and Karen McDermott, were informed of Connor’s violent behavior and propensities before the April 26 incident.
- Ridgell alleged the parents failed to take reasonable steps to control Connor, including obtaining or permitting medication, counseling or behavior-modification services, medical/psychiatric evaluation (including possible hospitalization), and following school recommendations.
- Ridgell sued Connor for personal injury (Count I) and sued the parents for negligent failure to supervise/control their minor child (Counts II and III).
- The trial court dismissed Counts II and III with prejudice for failure to state a claim; Ridgell appealed that dismissal.

## Issues

1. Whether a petition states a claim for negligent parental supervision/control by alleging parental knowledge of a minor’s dangerous propensities, ability and opportunity to control, and failure to use reasonable care to prevent foreseeable harm.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal of Counts II and III and remanded for further proceedings.
- Applying de novo review, the court accepted the pleaded facts as true and drew reasonable inferences in Ridgell’s favor.
- The court held Missouri recognizes a negligence cause of action against parents who, with notice of a child’s dangerous propensities, fail to act reasonably to restrain the child from injuring others.
- The petition sufficiently alleged (1) parental knowledge based on prior violent incidents and notice, (2) ability and opportunity to control through available interventions, and (3) breach and proximate cause linking the parents’ inaction to Ridgell’s injuries.

## Legal Principles

- Parents are generally not vicariously liable for a minor child’s torts solely due to the parent-child relationship.
- Parents may be liable for negligent supervision/control when:
  - the parents knew or should have known of the child’s dangerous propensities;
  - the parents had the opportunity and ability to control the child; and
  - the parents failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent foreseeable injury to others.
- On a motion to dismiss, courts accept properly pleaded facts as true, construe pleadings broadly, and dismiss only if the petition invokes no substantive principle that would permit relief.
- Allegations of specific prior acts, notice, and omitted preventive measures can constitute “ultimate facts” sufficient to plead duty, breach, causation, and damages.

## Conclusion

The court held that detailed allegations of a minor’s repeated violent conduct at school, parental notice, and the parents’ failure to take reasonable available measures to control the child were sufficient to state claims for negligent parental supervision/control, making dismissal at the pleading stage improper.


Ridgell v. McDermott, 427 S.W.3d 310 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)