By Renee Nouri
Grand Prix, a go-kart track in New York State, has prevailed on a motion to assert a counterclaim seeking contribution against a child’s parent. The parent had lied about the age of her child, who crashed into a gate while operating a go-kart and sustained significant personal injuries.
Segal McCambridge represented the track in E.N. v. Grand Prix.
Historically, an action against a parent seeking contribution is not recognized in New York State as held by the seminal Court of Appeal case, Holodook v. Spencer, where a parent is not ordinarily liable for negligent supervision. However, a limited exception was argued as outlined in Nolechek v. Gesuale. In Nolechek v. Gesuale, the Court of Appeals held that in cases where an alleged tortfeasor who may be liable for damages to a child due to a parent’s negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument to their child, the alleged tortfeasor may seek indemnity or contribution from the injured child’s parent.
In the instant case, Segal McCambridge determined that the child’s family mispresented the child’s age to circumvent Grand Prix’s established age requirements, which led to his erroneous placement on a track meticulously designed for teenage participants. As a result of the misrepresentation, the child lost control of his go-kart and crashed into a gate.
The firm successfully argued that by placing the child on the Teen Track, the child’s mother created an unreasonable risk of harm to the child and to others on the track as well. Thus, the child’s mother breached her duty to third parties to shield them from her child’s improvident use of a dangerous instrument, a go-kart. Additionally, Grand Prix suffered financial harm as a result of the parents’ misrepresentation and the child’s use of the dangerous instrument. The firm sought contribution from the child’s mother, an individually named Plaintiff. The Honorable Thomas Quiñones in the Supreme Court, Westchester County agreed that the contribution claim against the child could proceed.
The Court determined that the contribution claim against the child’s mother did not lack merit, and it did not otherwise prejudice, or surprise the Plaintiffs. Further, citing a recent Second Department case, R.F. v. County of Westchester and Nolechek v. Gesuale, Justice Quiñones held that Grand Prix could state a cognizable counterclaim for contribution against a parent where it is alleged that the parent negligently entrusted a dangerous instrument to their child. Nolechek v. Gesuale further established that it would be unacceptable to permit a parent to evade liability to a concurrent tortfeasor who suffers financial harm due to the child’s improvident use of a dangerous instrument and subsequent injury. In R.F. v. County of Westchester, the Appellate Division, Second Department underscored the negligent entrustment of a dangerous instrument exception in order to permit party to assert a claim against a child’s parent.Accordingly, the scenario in E.N. v. Grand Prix was within the limited exception to Holodook’s rule. This decision opens the door to contribution claims against parents in the context of go-kart racing. Specifically, when a parent negligently entrusts their child with a go-kart, which creates a risk of unreasonable harm to the public at large and financial consequences to the alleged tortfeasor.
