ILNews

Mom may be liable for daughter's accident

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals judges agreed that a mother may possibly be liable for her daughter’s accident in which she struck a pedestrian with her car after drinking and talking on her cell phone at the time of the accident. The judges didn’t completely agree as to why the mother may be liable.

In Jerry Coleman Buchanan, by his father and guardian, Odell Buchanan v. Candice L. Vowell, Shannon Vowell, et al., No. 49A02-0909-CV-873, Jerry Buchanan sued Shannon Vowell for damages after her daughter, Candice, hit him while driving under the influence and while talking on her cell phone to her mother. Candice and Shannon left work at Brad’s Gold Club, where Candice drank the alcohol. Shannon followed Candice home in her own car and called Candice on the phone before the accident.

Buchanan suffered permanent brain damage and fractures from the accident. He alleged that Shannon knew Candice was intoxicated and should have known talking to her on the cell phone would further impair or distract Candice. He claimed she was liable under Restatement (Second) of Torts Sections 324A and 319. The trial court granted Shannon’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.

On interlocutory appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal, but disagreed as to which Restatement (Second) of Torts applied. Senior Judge Betty Barteau and Judge Patricia Riley found Restatement (Second) of Torts Sections 324A, 315, and 876 to be relevant. The Court of Appeals has held as a general rule that under the gratuitous undertaking concept defined in Section 324A, someone other than a driver isn’t liable for damages caused by the negligent acts of the driver unless that person has a special relationship that gives him the right to control the vehicle. In this case, Shannon didn’t try to stop her daughter from driving but assisted her by letting her drive and then trying to give her directions over the phone, noted Senior Judge Barteau. In addition, other jurisdictions have held that gratuitous undertakings concerning drivers may result in liability to someone other than the person who injured the party.

The majority also cited Illinois cases that addressed this issue under Section 876, which provides a person is liable for tortious conduct if he or she does a tortious act in concert with the other person. The judges ruled that Shannon agreed to enter into a concerted activity whereby she would follow her drunken daughter and distract or direct her by talking to her on the phone.

“Furthermore, we note that Shannon owed a duty of reasonable care to those that shared the road with her, both motorists and pedestrians,” wrote Senior Judge Barteau. “Shannon, as an individual, may have breached this duty by calling and distracting a person she knew was operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.”

Judge Nancy Vaidik, in a separate concurring-in-result opinion, believed that only Section 876 applied.

“Given our duty to review a ruling on a motion to dismiss by looking at the pleadings in the light most favorable to the non-movant with every reasonable inference construed in the non-movant’s favor, I believe that under these allegations, Shannon could conceivably be liable for aiding or encouraging Candice’s driving while intoxicated and leaving the scene of an accident,” she wrote.

Judge Vaidik also disagreed with the majority’s comments about the cell phone conversation. She didn’t believe merely calling someone on the phone knowing the person is driving and intoxicated constitutes a tortious act on its own.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT