## Facts

- A four-year-old child rode a tricycle in his family’s fenced front yard where the gate was ordinarily kept closed.
- The child’s father left the gate open, and the child rode into the street.
- The child was struck and injured by an automobile driven by an uninsured motorist.
- The child, through a guardian ad litem, sued his parents for negligence for failing to close the gate.
- The parents had no uninsured motorist coverage but had a homeowner’s policy they believed would cover liability.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona’s parental immunity doctrine barred a minor child’s negligence action against his parents for injuries allegedly caused by a parent’s failure to close a yard gate as part of supervising the child.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the parents.
- The court held parental immunity barred the claim because the alleged negligence fell within parental “care and control” (supervision and safety decisions within the family setting).
- The court declined to extend prior Arizona limits on parental immunity (recognizing a child’s claim for negligent driving) to claims grounded in parental supervision and household safety.
- The court rejected the argument that the availability of liability insurance justified allowing the suit, noting the lack of recovery stemmed largely from the uninsured driver.

## Legal Principles

- Parental immunity bars a child’s negligence claim against a parent when the alleged wrongful act or omission arises from parental duties of supervision, care, and control.
- A recognized exception permitting suits for a parent’s negligent driving does not automatically apply to claims involving ordinary parenting and household supervision.
- The existence of insurance coverage does not, by itself, warrant expanding tort liability for conduct treated as part of parental discretion in child-rearing and supervision.

## Conclusion

The court held that a child could not sue his parents for negligence based on a parent’s failure to close a yard gate because the conduct was within parental care and control, and Arizona’s parental immunity doctrine still applied to such supervisory decisions.


Sandoval v. Sandoval, 128 Ariz. 11, 623 P.2d 800 (Ariz. 1981)