Majority
p. 780Bill E. Fowler et al., Plaintiffs, v Benjamin Attenborough, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Harold E. Fowler et al., Third-Party Defendants-Respondents.
p. 781
The court erred in dismissing the third-party complaint asserted against the infant plaintiffs parents. The basis of the allegation of liability was not negligent supervision of their child (see, Holodook v Spencer, 36 NY2d 35 ), but rather negligent supervision and control over the guests on their premises, some of whom were underage and drinking beer provided by the son of the third-party defendants. " '[A] child * * * has a viable cause of action against its parent[s] based on the parent[s’] negligent act which breaches a duty owed to the world at large’ ” (Grivas v Grivas, 113 AD2d 264 , 266, quoting from Hurst v Titus, 77 AD2d 157 , 158); here, the duty owed is that of supervising and controlling infant guests (cf. Huyler v Rose, 88 AD2d 755 ). Thus, a third-party cause of action for contribution has been sufficiently stated to withstand a motion for summary judgment. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- Holodook v. Spencer 36 NY2d 35 p. 781
- Grivas v. Grivas 113 AD2d 264 at 266 p. 781
- Hurst v. Titus 77 AD2d 157 at 158 p. 781