Court Finds Student Driver’s Parent Can Be Liable in Fatal Crash for Negligent Supervision

A Virginia Court of Appeals has given a green light to a negligence lawsuit seeking to hold a mother responsible for failing to supervise her teenage son who was learning to drive when he hit and killed a person in another vehicle.

The estate of the person in the other vehicle who was killed alleged the driver’s mother, Rachel Dodson, was negligent for failing to supervise her son and for negligently entrusting a vehicle to an “unfit” driver. The estate administrators maintained that the mother intended to supervise her child’s driving, but that she was not paying attention to the driving. This inattention increased the risk and likelihood of the accident that followed, they argued.

In response, Dodson filed a demurrer, arguing that the estate failed to state a claim because the law does not recognize a duty for her to supervise the driver. The administrators “failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action for either common law negligence or negligent entrustment” and they failed to establish that she was under a legal duty to the administrators, either common law or statutory, Dodson argued.

However, a circuit court disagreed and denied Dodson’s demurrer. Dodson then filed for an interlocutory appeal, which the trial court certified to the Court of Appeals.

The decedent was heading southbound on F.T. Valley Road in Rappahannock County, Virginia, when she was struck by the vehicle operated by the Dodson’s son. At the time of the collision, the son was 15 years old and had recently obtained a learner’s permit to drive. In the vehicle were the driver’s mother and stepfather. He was driving a Ford F150 pickup truck owned by the Dodsons. Also riding in the truck were his two younger siblings.

During the drive, Rachel Dodson was sitting in the front seat of the truck, with a younger brother sitting between her and the driver’s seat. The stepfather was a passenger in the back seat. As alleged in the complaint, the driver was unfamiliar with the route, and he failed to use his turn signal and brakes when approaching the intersection where the collision took place. A stop sign was located at the intersection. The decedent died from injuries sustained in the accident.

A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals determined that the question was whether one who voluntarily and knowingly assumes the duty of supervising a student driver can then be held negligent for failing to supervise the young driver in a reasonably prudent manner under the circumstances. The court answered this question in the affirmative, finding the case fits within the “assumption of duty” framework—and that the estate administrator did state a claim against Dodson.

The court found that the negligence claim may proceed against Dodson, who sat in the front passenger seat, because she “voluntarily and knowingly” assumed the duty to supervise her 15-year-old son and yet failed to do so “in a reasonably prudent manner” while he was driving. The negligent entrustment claim against her was disallowed.

Also, both negligence claims against the stepfather, who sat in the back seat and assumed no duty, were disallowed.

Noting that this was an issue of first impression in Virginia, the court also addressed the administrators’ suggestion that Rachel Dodson somehow had a duty to prevent the accident and that she is naturally accountable for any errors made by her son. The court found this logic unpersuasive.

“Put another way, the accompanying driver is not an insurer against any possible accident; nor is she a mind-reader who can anticipate a split-second error by the student (such as mistakenly stepping on the accelerator rather than the brake); nor is she required to give a running commentary of advice throughout a properly executed journey,” the appeals court wrote.

The court then explained that it is up to a jury to decide whether in fact Dodson was negligent:

“Ultimately, if a claim is properly pleaded, the question of whether the accompanying parent negligently guided the student is a factual issue left for the jury to decide under the particular circumstances of the case. Indeed, whether Rachel Dodson, by her conduct, assumed a duty also presents a question for the factfinder. At this stage, we determine simply that in this case the Administrators’ claims that Rachel intended to supervise her son, her son was relying on her supervision, and then Rachel paid no attention to his driving are sufficient to survive the demurrer.”