Under negligent supervision/entrustment, which is correct?

• A. Parents are never liable for injuries caused by their children.
• B. Parents are always liable for negligent supervision of a child.
• C. Actions between parents and children are actionable to the same extent as non-family actions, but parental negligent supervision is not actionable by the child, with an exception.
• D. Parents are automatically liable for TP tortfeasors’ injuries caused by their child.

Answer: (C)

The core idea is that liability for negligent supervision or negligent entrustment depends on foreseeability and control, not on a blanket immunity because the parties are related. A parent can be liable to a third party if they knew or should have known that entrusting a dangerous instrument or failing to supervise would lead to harm, and their failure contributed to the injury. That means claims between family members are treated like ordinary tort claims when the harm is caused by the parent or child acting in the family context, just as they would be between non-family parties.

However, a child generally cannot sue a parent for negligent supervision of the child themselves. There is an exception, though: if the parent’s negligent supervision creates or contributes to harm to others (rather than just injuries to the child), the injured party can pursue a claim against the parent just as they would against another negligent tortfeasor. This captures the idea that the protective duty to prevent harm to others can give rise to liability for parents, even though the family relationship usually limits a child’s ability to sue for negligent supervision of the child.

For example, if a parent leaves a dangerous instrument where a child can access it and the child injures a third party, the injured party may sue the parent for negligent entrustment or negligent supervision. But a child who is injured due to a parent’s failure to supervise typically does not sue the parent for negligent supervision, absent the exception described.