CARLETTO PARDO, APPELLANT,
v.
SEAN CARHART, EDWARD CARHART, AND ARMANDO MARTINEZ, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Parent is not liable for child's battery where the record establishes the child had no habit of engaging in fist fights, and prior incidents were insufficient to put the parent on notice of such conduct.
A parent is not liable for a minor child's battery absent evidence that the child had a habit of engaging in the particular act or course of conduct that caused injury.
[1] A parent is not liable for a minor child's tortious conduct absent evidence establishing the child had a habit or propensity to engage in the particular type of conduct t…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe defendant's minor son struck the plaintiff in the face during a fist fight, breaking the plaintiff's nose and inflicting cuts around the eye. The …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Notice Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff Carletto Pardo from a final summary judgment entered in a negligence action brought against the defendant Edward Carhart for a battery inflicted by the defendant’s minor son.
We affirm based on a holding that the record establishes without material dispute that the defendant’s minor child did not have a habit of engaging in the particular act or course of conduct which led to the plaintiff’s injury, and, consequently, the defendant is not liable for the child’s battery. The accident sued upon involved a fist fight in which the defendant’s child struck the plaintiff in the face, breaking the plaintiff’s nose, and inflicting cuts to the area surrounding the plaintiff’s eye.
The record demonstrates that the child had not engaged in any prior fist fights; moreover, the eight-year-old prior incident in which the child threw a swim mask striking a child’s face and the recent, but relatively minor, shoving incident in the school bus would not have put the defendant on notice that his child might injure someone in a fist fight. We have not overlooked the fist fight incident in which the defendant’s child broke another child’s nose, but this incident occurred subsequent to the incident sued upon, and, accordingly, has no relevance to the instant case. Snow v. Nelson, 475 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1985); Gissen v. Goodwill, 80 So. 2d 701 (Fla.1955).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Townsend v. State, 80 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 1955)
- Snow v. Nelson, 475 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 1985)