From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Semmens v. Hopper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1987
128 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

March 23, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Cowhey, J.).


Ordered that the order is modified by deleting the provisions thereof which granted those branches of the respondent's motion which were for partial summary judgment on the claims in the complaint with the exception of the claims for negligent supervision, and substituting therefor provisions denying those branches of the motion. As so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term was correct that a child has no cause of action against a parent for injuries resulting from negligent supervision (see, Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35). However, a question of fact exists as to whether the breach of a duty to exercise reasonable care with respect to the accessibility to a swimming pool, a duty owed separate and apart from the family relationship, was the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff's injuries (see, Grivas v. Grivas, 113 A.D.2d 264; Hurst v. Titus, 77 A.D.2d 157). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Semmens v. Hopper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 23, 1987
128 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Semmens v. Hopper

Case Details

Full title:SHANE SEMMENS, an Infant, by His Mother and Natural Guardian, DEBORAH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 23, 1987

Citations

128 A.D.2d 767 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Young v. Greenberg

Similarly, issues of fact attend the question of whether appellant-father negligently entrusted John with a…

Trost v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

These allegations do not emanate from the parent-child relationship (see, Grivas v Grivas, 113 A.D.2d 264;…