FI RST DI VI SI ON

BA RNES, P. J.

, GOBEI L and M A RKLE, JJ.

N O T IC E : M otions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be

ph y sic a l ly r e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n

da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

Febr uar y 22, 2022



# I n th e Co u r t o f

A p p eals o f

G eo r g ia

A2 1 A1 72 0 . SOW ELL et al . v . SOLOM ON et al

.

G O B E I L

, J u d g e.

In 2 0 1 7 , Bran d o n an d Li n d a So wel l ’ s (co l lect i v el y

, th e “ Defen d an t s”) m i n o r

s o n was i n v o l v ed in a b i cy cl e co l l i s io n t h at res u l t ed i n t he d eat h o f Ti m o t h y So l o m o n

(“ So l o m o n ”). So l o m o n ’ s wi d o w fi l ed a p ers o n al i nju ry s u i t ag ai n s t t h e Defen d an t s

,

an d t he D efen dan t s n o w ap p eal fro m t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er d en y i n g t h ei r m o t i o n fo r

s u m m ary ju d gm en t

. In t hat o rd er, t h e t ri al co urt fo u n d t h at q u es ti o n s o f fact ex i s t as

t o wh et h er t h e D efen d an t s are l i ab l e u n d er t h e t h eo ri es o f neg l i g en t en tru s t m en t

,

n eg li g en t su perv i s io n

, an d neg l i g en t t r a i n i n g an d in s t ru ct i o n

. Th e cru x o f t h e

Defen d an t s ’ co n ten t i o n o n ap p eal i s t h at b as ed on ex is t i n g p reced en t

, p aren t s can n ot

b e h e l d l i a b l e as a m at t er o f l aw fo r “ fu rn i s hi n g a ch il d a b icy cl e wh o t h en ri d es i t

u n s u perv i s ed

, i s i n v o l v ed i n an acci d en t [,] an d cau s es i n ju ry an d d am ag es toan o th er.” Al t h o u g h we di sag ree wi t h t h e bread t h an d s co p e o f t h e Defen d an t s ’

as s ert i o n

, we ag ree t h at rev ers al i s warran t ed u n der t h e s peci fi c fact s o f t hi s cas e, as

ex p lai n ed b el o w

.

Su m m ary ju d g m e n t i s ap p ro p ri at e i f t h e p lead i n g s

, d ep os i t i o ns

,

an s wers t o i n t erro g at o ri es

, an d ad m i s s i o ns o n fi l e, to g et h er wi t h th e

affi d av i t s

, i f an y

, s h o w t h at t h ere i s n o g en u i n e i s s u e as to an y m at eri al

f a c t a n d t h at t h e m o v i ng p art y i s en ti t led t o a ju d g m en t as a m at t er o f

l aw. In rev iewi n g t he d en i al o f a s u m m ary ju d g m en t m o t io n

, we o we n o

d eferen ce t o t h e t r i a l co u rt ’ s ru l in g an d we rev i ew d e no v o b o t h th e

ev i d en ce an d t h e tri al co urt ’ s l eg al co ncl u s i o ns

. M o reo ver, we co n s t ru e

t h e ev i d en ce an d al l in feren ces an d co ncl u s io n s ari si ng t h erefro m m o s t

fav o rab ly t o ward t h e p art y

o p po s i n g t h e m o t i o n

.

Y im v. Ca r r

, 3 4 9 Ga. Ap p

. 8 9 2

, 8 9 3 (1 ) (8 2 7 SE2 d 68 5 ) (2 0 1 9 ) (ci tat i o n s an d

p u n c t u a t i o n o m i tt ed ). So v i ewed

, t h e reco rd s h o ws t h at o n Ap ri l 1 5

, 2 0 1 7

, at

ap p ro x i m at el y 4 p

. m

. , t h e D e fen d an t s ’ t h en 10 -y ear-o l d s o n

, P. S., was ri d i ng a

b i cy cl e 1 i n t h e Ci t y of A v on d al e Es t at es w h en h e co ll i ded w i t h t h e b i cy cl e t h at

Ti m o t h y So l om o n (“ So l o m o n”) was ri di n g

. P. S. d es cri bed th at h e h ad b een ri d i n g h i s

b i cy cl e o n th e si d ewal k o n hi s way h o m e al o ng Lak es h o re Dri v e, wh en h e at t em p t ed

t o cro s s t h e ro ad way

t o m eet u p wi t h hi s fri en d o n t h e o t h er s i d e o f t h e s treet . As P.

1 P. S. h ad h i s p aren t s ’ p erm i s s i o n t o ri d e h is o l d er b ro t h er’ s b i cy cl e o n t h e d ay o f

t h e i n ci d en t

.

2S. was “ [s ] t an d i n g u p o n t h e p ed al s ” o f h i s b icy cl e wi t h h i s h an d s on t h e b rak es , h e

t ri ed t o l o o k o ut fo r o nco m i n g t raffi c, b u t h i s vi ew was ob s tru ct ed b y p ark ed cars o n

b o t h s i d es o f t h e s t reet

. Sp eci fi cal l y

, h e co u l d n o t s ee t h ro u gh t h e t i n t ed wi n d o ws o f

a p ark ed SUV t o h i s l eft

. Aft er P. S. en t ered th e ro ad way

, h e s u d d en l y s aw So l o m o n

ri di n g t o ward s h im

. So l o m o n y el l ed “ St op ,” an d P. S. co m p l i ed

. In a m at t er o f

s eco n d s

, t h e fro n t wh eel o f So l om o n ’ s b i cy cl e co ll i ded wi t h t h e fro nt wh eel o f P. S.’ s

b i cy cl e, an d t h e i m

p act o f t h e co l l i s i o n cau s ed So l o m o n t o v eer i n to a p ark ed car an d

fal l t o t h e g ro u n d

. As a res u l t o f t h e acci d en t

, So l o m o n s u s t ai n ed a h ead i n ju ry t h at

l ed t o h i s d eat h a few d ay s l at er.

San d ra G. So l o m o n

, i n d i v i d u al l y as So l o m on ’ s wi fe an d as Ad m i n i s t rat o r o f

t h e E s t at e o f Ti m o th y Jam es So l o m o n (“ Pl ai nt i ff”), s u ed t h e D e f e n d an t s

, 2 al l eg i n g

cl ai m s o f n eg li g en t en t r u s t m e n t (fo r p ro vi d i n g a bi cy cl e t o P. S., wh o was n ot

c o m p et en t t o s afel y ri d e a b i cy cl e o n a p u b l i c ro ad way ), n eg l i g en t s u perv i s i o n (fo r

fai l i n g t o s u p erv i s e P. S. a s h e ro d e a b i cy cl e o n a p u bl i c ro ad way ), an d n eg l i g en t

i n s t ru ct i o n an d t rai n i n g (fo r fai l i n g t o p ro p erl y i n s t ru ct an d t rai n P. S. o n t h e ru l es o f

t h e ro ad as i t rel at ed to b i cy cl e s afel y on a p u b l i c ro ad way ). Th e Defen dan t s m o v ed

2 Pl ai n t i ff d i d n o t rai s e an y cl ai m s ag ai n s t P. S. See S o r r el l s v. Mi l l er

, 2 1 8 Ga. Ap p

. 6 4 1

, 6 4 3 (2 ) (4 6 2 SE2 d 7 9 3 ) (1 9 9 5 ) (“ In Geo rg i a, ch i l d ren b el o w t h e ag e o f 1 3 are i m m u n e

fro m t o rt l i ab i l it y .”).

3fo r s u m

m ary ju d g m en t, 3 wh i ch t h e t ri al co u rt d en i ed as t o l iab i l i t y

. 4 Th e co u rt fo u n d

i n rel ev an t p art :

A b i cy cl e i s n o t al way s a d an g ero u s i n s t ru m en t al it y

, b u t i t can b eco m e

a d an g ero u s i n s t ru m en t al i t y wh en u s e d i m p ro p erl y

. W h et h er p aren t s

h av e ex erci s ed o rd i n ary care i n en t ru s t i n g a b i cy cl e to a ch i l d i s wh ol l y

d ep en d en t o n m an y v ari ab l es

, i n cl u d in g t h e part icu l ar ch i l d at i s s u e, th e

p art i cu l ar t i m e at i s s u e, an d t h e p art icu l ar l o cat io n at i s s u e.

Th e co u rt t h erefo re reas on ed t h at Pl ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s s t em m i n g fro m th e Defen d an t s ’

fu rn i sh i ng P. S. wi t h a b icy cl e t o ri d e o n a p u bl i c ro ad w ay were bes t l eft t o t h e ju ry

,

as t h ere rem ai n ed co n t es t ed i s s ues o f fact as to wh et h er t he Defen d an ts (1 ) ex erci s ed

o rd i n ary care t o an t i ci p at e an d g u ard ag ai n s t P. S.’ s p o ten t i al m i s u se of t h e b i cy cl e;

(2 ) were n eg l i g en t i n al l o w i n g P. S. t o ri d e h i s b icy cl e wi t h o u t s u p erv i s i o n ; an d

(3 ) p ro v i d ed P. S. wi t h ad eq u at e t rai n i n g an d i n s t ru ct i o n i n bi cy cl e s afet y g i v en t h e

ci rcu m s t an ces p res en t i n t h i s c a s e. Th e t ri al co u rt i ss u ed a cert ifi cat e o f i m m ed i at e

3 Th e Defen d an t s al s o fi l ed a m o t i on fo r s an ct i o n s

, al l eg i n g t hat Pl ai n ti ff “ s p o l i at ed

ev i d en ce wh en s h e ei t h er d es t ro y ed o r fai l ed to m ai n t ai n t h e s p eed o m et er t h at was affi x ed

t o h er h u sb an d ’ s b i cy cl e at t h e t i m e o f h i s acci d en t wi t h P. S.” Th e t ri al co u rt d en i ed t h e

m o t i o n , an d t he Defen d an t s d o n o t ch al l en g e t h is ru l i n g o n ap p eal

.

4 Th e Defen d an t s al s o s o u gh t s u m m a r y ju d g m en t as t o t h e i s s u e o f d am ag es

. Th e

t ri al co u rt g ran ted t h e m o t io n as to Pl ai n t iff’ s cl ai m fo r po s t-i m p act h arm

, b ut d en i ed t h e

m o t i o n as t o t he cl ai m fo r fu t u re earn i n g s

. Th e Defen d an t s h av e n o t rai s ed an y arg u m en t s

i n t h ei r b ri ef co ncern i n g d am ag es

.

4rev i ew. W e g ran ted t h e Defen d an ts ’ ap p l i cat i o n fo r i n t erl o cu t o ry rev i ew

, a n d t h i s

ap p eal fo l l o w ed

.

“ It i s wel l s et t l ed i n t h i s st at e t h at paren t s are n o t l i ab le i n d am ag es fo r t h e t o rt s

o f t hei r m i n o r ch il d ren m erel y b ecau s e o f t h e p aren t -ch i l d rel at i on s hi p .” S mi t h v.

Br o oks

, 2 4 7 G a

. Ap p

. 8 3 1

, 8 3 2 (5 4 5 SE2 d 1 3 5 ) (2 0 0 1 ) (ci tat i o n an d pu n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). See al so Ph i l l i

ps v. Di xo n

, 2 3 6 Ga. 2 7 1

, 2 7 2 (2 2 3 SE2 d 67 8 ) (1 9 76 ) (“ [A]

p aren t gen eral l y i s n o t l i ab l e fo r t h e t ort s o f a ch i l d [.] ”); Ki t ch en s v. Ha rr i s

, 3 0 5 Ga.

Ap p

. 79 9

, 8 0 0 (7 01 SE2 d 2 0 7) (2 0 1 0 ) (s am e). Rat her, OCGA § 5 1-2 -2

, a v ers i o n o f

wh i ch h as a p p e a red i n ev ery Geo rg i a co d e s i n ce 18 6 3

, s et s o u t t h e ci rcu m s t an ces

u n d er wh i ch a p aren t i s l i ab l e fo r a ch i l d ’ s t o rt s , p ro v i d i n g :

Ev ery p ers o n s h al l be l i ab l e fo r t o rt s co m m it t ed b y hi s wi fe, hi s ch i ld

,

o r h i s s er van t b

y h is co mma n d o r i n t h e p r os ecu t i o n a n d wi th i n th e

s co p e o f h i s b u s i n es s

, w h et her t h e sam e are co m m i tt ed b y n eg l i g en ce o r

v o l u n t ari l y

.

(Em p h as i s s u p p li ed .) Paren t s ’ d u t y t o co nt ro l t h ei r m in o r ch i l d ren i s ex pres s ed i n t h e

Res tat em en t (Seco n d ) o f To rt s § 3 1 6 as fo l lo ws :

A paren t i s un der a du t y t o ex erci s e reas o n ab l e c a re s o to co nt ro l h i s

m i n o r ch i l d as t o prev en t i t fro m

. . . s o co n d u ct i n g i t s el f as t o creat e an

u n reas o n ab l e ri s k o f b od i l y harm t o t h em

, i f t h e p aren t (a) k n o ws o r h as

reas o n t o k no w t h at h e has t h e ab i l it y t o co n t ro l h i s ch i l d

, an d (b ) k n o ws

5o r s h o ul d k n o w o f t h e n eces s it y an d o p p o r t un i ty fo r ex erci s i ng s u ch

co n t ro l.

Hi s t o ri cal l y

, t herefo re, “ u n les s t h e p aren t p art i ci p at ed i n t h e m i n o r’ s t ort

, o r t h ro u g h

n eg li g en ce cau s ed or p erm i t t ed t h e t o rt t o o ccu r, co u rt s o ft en ab s o l v ed p aren t s fro m

l i ab i l i t y

, u n l es s s o m e o t h er rel at i o n sh i p, s u ch as th at o f p ri n ci p al an d ag en t

, o r m as t er

an d s erv an t

, ex i s t ed b et w een p aren t an d ch i ld .” G u z ma n v. Li n k

, 3 5 4 G a. Ap p . 4 6 3,

4 6 7 (2 ) (8 4 1 SE2 d 2 03 ) (2 0 2 0 ) (ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m i t t ed ).

“ Paren t s m ay be hel d d i rect l y l i ab l e

, ho wev er, fo r t h ei r o wn n eg l i gen ce in

fai l i n g t o s u p erv i s e o r co n t ro l t h ei r ch i l d wi t h reg ard t o co n d u c t wh i ch p o s es an

u n reas o nab l e ri s k o f h arm i n g ot h ers .” Bo s t o n v. At h ea r n

, 3 2 9 G a. Ap p

. 8 9 0

, 8 9 3 (1 )

(7 6 4 SE2 d 5 82 ) (2 0 14 ). Fo r ex am p l e, an act i o n h as b een perm i tt ed t o p ro ceed wh ere

t h ere was s o m e paren t al n eg li g en ce i n fu rn i s h i n g o r p erm i t t i n g a ch i l d acces s t o an

i n s t ru m en t al i t y w i t h wh i ch th e ch i l d l i k el y wo u l d i n ju re a t h i rd p art y

. See e.g

., Fa i th

v. Ma s s en gi l l

, 10 4 Ga. A p p

. 3 4 8

, 3 5 4 (2 ) (a) (1 2 1 SE2 d 6 5 7 ) (1 9 6 1 ) (ai r ri fl e),

o v erru l ed o n o t h er g ro u n d s b y Br a d y v. Lewl es s , 1 2 4 Ga. Ap p

. 8 5 8

, 8 59 (1 8 6 SE2 d

3 1 0 ) (1 9 7 1 ); Her r i n v. La ma r

, 1 0 6 G a. Ap p

. 91

, 9 3 -9 5 (2 ) (1 2 6 SE2 d 4 5 4) (1 9 6 2 )

(ro t ary l awn m o wer); Gl ea n v. S mi t h

, 1 1 6 Ga. Ap p. 1 1 1, 1 1 2 -1 1 4 (3 ) (1 5 6 SE2 d 5 0 7 )

(1 9 6 7) (p i s t o l ); McBer ry v. Ivi e

, 1 1 6 Ga. A p p

. 8 0 8, 8 1 0 -8 11 (1 5 9 SE2 d 1 0 8 ) (1 9 6 7 )

6(s h o t g u n ). “ In cas es o f t h i s so rt t h e qu es t i o n i s wh et her t he fact s o f t h e cas e i m p o s e

u p o n t h e p aren t a d u t y t o an t i ci p at e i n ju ry t o an o t h er t h ro u g h th e ch i l d’ s u s e o f t h e

i n s t ru m en t al i t y .” Co rl ey v. Lewl es s , 2 27 Ga. 7 4 5 , 7 4 8 (1 ) (1 82 SE2 d 7 6 6 ) (1 9 7 1 ).

1

. As a s t art i n g p o in t

, t he D efen d an t s arg u e t h at t h e tri al co u rt erro n eo u s l y

d i s t i n gu i sh ed Geo r g i a p reced en t t h at p recl u d es l i ab i l i t y fo r t h e p aren t al n eg l i g en ce

cl ai m s i n t h i s act i o n

. In t hi s reg ard

, t h e Defen d an t s p o i n t to Ca l h o u n v. Pa i r

, 1 9 7 Ga.

7 0 3 (3 0 SE2 d 1 80 ) (1 9 4 4), wh e r e t h e p l ai nt iff b ro u g h t an act io n ag ai n s t t h e

d efen d an t

, al l eg in g t hat p l ai nt i ff’ s 1 2 -y ear-o l d s o n h ad b een i n ju red aft er b ei n g “ r[u ] n

o v er” b y a b i cy cl e ri d den b y t h e d efen d an t ’ s 1 4 -y ear-o l d s o n. Ca l h o u n v. P a i r

, 7 1 Ga.

Ap p . 2 1 1 (3 0 SE2 d 7 7 6) (1 94 4 ). Th e p l ai n t i ff’ s co m p l ai n t d es cri b ed :

T hat t h e d efen d an t fu rn i s h ed t h e b i cy cl e to h i s s o n fo r t h e s peci f i c

p u rp o s e o f g i v i n g t h e s o n t ran s po rt at i o n t o an d fro m hi s h o m e an d

s ch o o l

, t h e s ch o o l b ei n g co n s i d erab l e d i s t an ce fro m h i s h o m e, an d th e

s o n was ri di n g t h e b icy cl e w i t h t h e fat h er’ s ap p ro b at i o n an d was

t h erefo re t h e ag en t an d / or s erv an t o f t h e d efen d an t, act i n g wi th [i n] t he

s co p e o f h i s ag en cy

an d /o r em

p l o y m en t at th e t i m e o f t h e [o ccu rren ce]

co m p lai n ed o f i n t h i s s u i t

.

Ca l ho u n

, 7 1 Ga. Ap p

. at 2 1 1 (p u n ct u at i o n o m i tt ed ). Th e p l ai nt i ff fu rt h er al l eg ed t h at

t h e d efen d an t’ s ch i l d was ri d in g h i s b i cy cl e on t h e s id ewal k wi t h i n t h e l im it s o f t h e

Ci t y o f At l an t a i n v i o l at i o n o f a ci t y o rd i n an ce. Id

. at 2 1 2

. Th e t ri al co u rt d i s m i s s ed

7t h e su i t on t h e b as i s “ t h at no cau s e o f act i o n w as s et fo rt h ei t h er at l aw o r i n eq u i t y .”

Id . Th i s Co u rt cert i fi ed t h e fo l l o wi n g q u es t i on s t o t h e Su p rem e Co u rt o f Geo rg i a:

1

. Is a fat h er, w h o fu rn i sh es t o h is m i n o r s o n (fo u rt een y ears o f ag e) a

b i cy cl e fo r t h e p u rp o s e o f u s i n g t he s am e t o g o t o an d fro m s ch o ol

,

l i ab l e t o an o t her i n d am ag es fo r i n ju ri es recei v ed by t h e o t h er wh en s u ch

i n j u ri es are occas i o n ed b y t he n eg l i gen t an d un l awfu l u s e o f s u ch

b i cy cl e by t h e m i n o r s o n

, an d wh ere s u ch n e g l i g e n c e i s t h e p ro x i m at e

cau s e o f t h e i n

j u ry ? 2. If t h e an s w e r t o t h e fi rs t q u es t i o n is in th e

affi rm a t i v e, is s uch l i ab i l i t y b as ed o n w h at i s g en eral l y t erm ed “ th e

fam i l y p u rp o s e d o ct ri n e,”[ 5 ] o r o n s o m e o t h er p ri nci p l e o f l aw?

Ca l ho u n

, 1 9 7 Ga. at 7 0 3 (p u n ct u at io n o m i t ted ). Th e J us t i ces were “ un an i m ou s i n t h e

v i ew t h at t h e an swer t o t h e fi rs t q u es t i o n i s

, ‘ No .’ ” Id

. H o wev er, “ [t ] he J u s t i ces [were]

i n d i s ag reem en t as t o t h e p r o ces ses o f reas on i ng b y wh i ch [t h ey ] reach [ed ] t h e

u l t i m at e co n cl u si o n.” Id

.

5 In 1 9 1 5

, o u r Su p rem e Co urt ad o p t ed t h e fam i l y p u rp os e d o ct ri n e, w h i ch s t at es t h at

a p are n t m ay b e li ab l e fo r t h e neg l i g en t act i on s o f a ch i l d

, w h ere t h e ch i l d i s d ri v i n g a

fam i l y -o wn ed au t o m o bi l e fo r th e co m fo rt an d p l eas u re o f t h e fam i l y

. See Gr i f f i n v. Ru s s el l

, 1 4 4 Ga. 27 5

, 28 7 (1 ) (8 7 SE 1 0 ) (1 9 1 5 ). In Ca l h o u n

, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt f o u n d i t

u n n eces s ary t o a d d r e s s t h e ap p l i cab i l i t y of t he fam i l y p u rp os e d oct ri n e i n l i g h t o f i t s

co n cl u s i o n t h at t h e p aren t co ul d n o t b e h el d l i ab l e fo r t h e ch i l d ’ s b icy cl e acci d en t

. 1 9 7 Ga.

at 7 0 3

. M o re recen tl y

, i n Ca r t er v. Kea r s e

, 1 42 Ga. Ap p. 2 5 1

, 2 5 1 (2 3 5 SE2 d 7 5 5 ) (1 9 7 7 ),

o u r Co u rt d ecl in ed t o ex t en d t h e fam i l y p u rp o s e d o ct ri n e t o b i cy cl es

.

8Here, t h e t ri a l c o u r t d et erm i ned t h at Ca l h o u n w as i n ap p l i cab le t o t h i s cas e.

S peci fi cal l y

, t h e co u rt i n t erp ret ed t h e ru l i n g as b ei n g l i m i t ed t o cl ai m s al l eg i n g

v i cari o u s l i ab i l i t y ag ai n s t p aren t s fo r t h e n eg l i g en c e o f t h ei r ch i l d ren

, an d n ot

ap p li cab l e t o d i rect n eg l ig en ce c lai m s ag ai ns t paren t s as al l eg ed h ere. No t ab l y

,

h o wev er, t h e Su p rem e Co u rt ’ s o p i n i o n i n Ca l h o u n d i d no t ex p res s l y l i m i t i t s ru l i n g

t o p aren t al v i cari o u s l i ab i li t y cl ai m s

. See Ca l h o un

, 1 9 7 Ga. at 7 0 3

. An d n ei t h er t h e

t ri al co u rt n o r Pl ai n t i ff h as ci t ed an y p reced en t p ro v i d i n g s u c h l i m i t at i o n

. Th e

De f e nda nts c onten d t h at t h e Ca lh o u n p l ai n t i ff es s en t ial l y bro u g h t a cl ai m o f n eg l i g en t

en t ru s t m en t a g ai n s t t h e fat h er fo r fu rn i s h in g h i s m i n o r s o n w it h a b i cy cl e, an d

t h erefo re, t h e reas o ni n g i n Ca l h o u n ap pl i es i n t h i s cas e t o b ar Pl ai n t iff’ s cl ai m s

. By

co n tras t

, Pl ai n t i ff arg u es th at t h e C a l h o u n p l ai n t iff rai s ed h i s cl ai m b as ed o n t h e

m i n o r c hi l d ’ s n eg l i gen t u s e of t h e b i cy cl e w h i l e act i n g as t h e fat h er’ s ag en t an d / o r

s erv an t

, s ee 7 1 Ga. Ap p. at 2 11

, an d t h u s

, t h e Ca l h ou n h ol d i n g i s ap p l i cab l e o n l y to

p aren t al v i cari ou s l i ab il i t y cl ai m s

.

Th e Su p rem e Co urt ’ s op i n i o n i n Ca l h o u n i s s h o rt an d it s i n t en d ed s co p e

u n cl ear g i ven i t s fai lu re t o s p eci fy t he p l ai nt iff’ s ex act cl ai m s i n t h e u n d e r l yi n g

act i on

. Th e op i n i o n ad d res s es wh et h er a p aren t i s “ li ab l e t o an ot h er i n d am ag es fo r

i n ju ri es recei v ed b y t h e o t h er wh en s u ch i n ju ri es are o ccas i o n ed b

y t h e n eg l i

g en t a n d

9u n l a wf

u l u s e o f s u ch b i cycl e b

y t h e mi n o r s o n [.] ” Ca l h o u n

, 19 7 G a. at 7 0 3 (em p h as i s

s u p p li ed ). On i t s face, t h i s lan g u ag e s u g g es t s an al l eg at i o n o f v i cari o us l i ab i l i t y as

o p p o s ed t o a cl ai m of d i rect n eg l i g en ce ag ai n s t t h e p aren t s

, as is th e cas e h ere. In an y

ev en t, b as ed o n i t s l i m i t ed l an g u ag e, we ag ree wi t h t he t ri al co u rt t h at Ca l h o u n i s n ot

d i s p o s i t i ve o f t h e cl ai m s i n t h i s ap p eal

.

2

. T u rn i n g t o t h e i n s t an t cas e, Pl ai n ti ff’ s p aren t al n eg l ig en ce cl ai m s ag ai n s t t h e

Defen d an t s st e m f

r o m t hei r fu rn is h in g a bi cy cl e to P. S. an d al l o wi n g h i m t o ri d e

u n s u perv i s ed in h i s l o c a l n ei g h b o rh o o d

. W e fi rs t co ns i d er th e s tan d ard o f care

ap p li cab l e t o each o f t h es e cl ai m s

.

(a) Neg l i g en t En t ru s t men t

Su b s eq uen t t o Ca l h o u n , we h av e ex p l ai n ed t h at

[ w ]h e r e i n

ju ry i s cau s ed b y an i n st ru m en t al i ty m ad e acces s i b l e to th e

ch i l d b y t he p aren t

, wh i ch i f u s ed p ro p erl y i s reas on ab l y s afe b u t wh ich

b eco m es a d an g ero u s i n s t ru m en t al i t y wh en n ot p ro perl y han d l ed

, th e

q u es t i o n b eco m es o ne of o rd i n ary n eg l i g en ce. W het h er or n o t t h e paren t

ex erci s ed o rd i n ary care t o an ti ci p at e an d g u ard ag ai n st s u ch m i s u se i s

t h u s freq u en t l y a ju ry q u es t i o n as i n o t h er n eg li g en c e cas es

. . . .

Al t h ou g h reco v ery i s perm it t ed wh ere t h ro u g h p aren t a l n eg l i g en ce a

ch i l d i s p e r m i t t ed acces s t o an in s t ru m en t al i t y wh i ch

, i f n o t pro p erl y

u s ed

, i s fo res eeab l y l i k el y t o cau s e i nju ry t o a t h i rd p ers o n

, t h i s d o es n o t

m ak e t h e p aren t l i ab l e fo r an i n ju ry n eg l i gen t l y in fl i ct ed b y a ch i l d

10wh er e t h er e i s no da n g er o u s p r ocl i vi ty kn o wn t o t h e f o r m er a n d n o

r ea s on t o a n ti ci

p a t e t h e i n

j u r y wh i ch i n f

a ct o ccu r r ed

.

Hi l l v. Mo r r i s o n

, 1 6 0 Ga. A p p. 1 5 1, 1 5 1 -1 5 3 ( 2 8 6 S E 2 d 4 6 7 ) (1 9 8 1 ) (em p h as i s

s u p p li ed ) (i n n eg l i g e n ce act i o n b ro ug h t ag ai n s t p aren t s o f n i n e-y ear-o l d b o y wh o

al l o wed h i s co m

p an i o n t o ri d e h i s m o t o ri z e d g o -cart wh i ch res u l t ed i n d eat h o f

co m p an i o n i n co l l i s i o n wi t h au t o m o b i l e, m at eri al i s su e of fact ex i s t ed as t o wh et h er

p aren t s ’ i n st ru ct i o n s t o t h ei r s o n n ot t o l et a t h i r d p e rs o n u s e t h e g o-cart wi t h o ut

p aren t al p erm i ss i o n was s u ffi ci en t t o rel i ev e p aren t s fro m res po n s i b i l i t y

, p recl u d i n g

s u m m ary ju d g m en t ). See al s o

, Da vi s v. Ga va l a s

, 3 7 Ga. Ap p

. 24 2

, 2 4 2 (1 3 9 SE 5 7 7 )

(1 9 2 7) (h o l d i n g t h at p l ai nt i ff ad eq u at el y p lead ed a cau s e o f act i o n ag ai n s t t h e p aren t s

fo r neg l i g en ce b e cau s e th e p aren t s “ kn o wi n g ly p erm i t [ed ] ” t hei r ch i l d

, a

fi ve-y ear-o l d , t o ri d e a v el o ci p ed e 6 o n a p u b l i c s i d ewal k at n i g h t 7 ); Her r i n , 1 0 6 Ga.

6 A “ v el o ci p ed e” i s “ a l i g h t wei g h t wh eel ed v eh i cl e pro p el led b y t he ri d er,” s i m i l ar

t o a b i c y c l e

. S e e M e r r i a m

- W e b s t e r ’ s D i c t i o n a r y

, h t t p s : / /www.m erri am -web s t er.co m / d i ct i o n ary

/ v el o ci p ed e (l as t v i s i t ed J an

. 2 4 , 2 0 2 2 ).

7 It rem ai n s u n cl ear wh et h er t h e n eg l i g en ce cl a i m i n Da vi s w as b as ed o n

, fo r

i n s t an ce, t h e v el o ci p ed e’ s b ei n g a d an g ero u s i n s t ru m en t al i ty , t h e ch i l d ’ s p rev i o u s u s e o f

t h e v el o ci ped e (i n a way t h at p u t t h e paren ts o n no t i ce th at t h e ch i l d co u l d harm s o m eo n e

el s e i f t h e ch i l d ro de t h e v el o ci p ed e), t he c h i l d ’s a g e or m at uri t y

, o r t h e o p erat i n g

co n d i ti o n s.

11Ap p

. at 9 2 -9 5 (1 )-(2 ) (fi nd i n g c a u s e o f act io n ag ai n s t m o t h er fo r fu rn i s h i n g an

i n h eren t l y

d an g ero us i ns t ru m en t al i t y (a l awn m o wer) t o h er t en -y ear-o l d ch i l d ).

Here, i t i s u n di sp u ted t h at t h e D efen d an t s g av e P. S. p erm i s s i o n t o ri d e a

b i cy cl e o n t h e dat e o f t h e i n ci d e n t

. A s a res u l t

, t h e k ey i n q u i ry is w het h er t h e

Defen d an t s ’ act i n al l o w i n g P. S. t o ri d e h is bi cy cl e i n h i s l o cal n ei g h b o rh oo d wi t h o ut

t h ei r d i rect s u p erv i s i o n

, was “ fo res eeab l y l i k el y t o cau s e i n ju ry t o a t h i rd pers o n [.] ”

Hi l l , 1 6 0 Ga. Ap p . at 1 5 1-1 52

. 8

(b ) Neg l i g en t S u p er vi s i o n

8 Th i s s t an d ard co n t ras ts w it h t h at ap pl i cab l e to in s t an ces i n wh i ch a p aren t d i d n o t

fu rn i s h or ex p res s ly p erm i t a c h i l d a cces s to a p o t en t ial l y dan g ero u s i n s t ru m en t

, b u t t h e

ch i l d acces s ed i t an y way

. In s u ch cas es

, a p l ai n ti ff h as to s ho w a h ei g h t e n ed st an d ard o f

k n o wl ed g e, n am el y

, “ wh et h er t h e p aren t k n ew o f t he ch i l d ’ s p ro cl i v i t y o r p ro p en s i t y fo r

t h e s peci fi c d an g ero u s act i v i t y .” Ki t ch en s

, 3 0 5 Ga. Ap p

. at 80 0 (rev ers i n g t ri al co u rt ’ s

d en i al o f s u m

m ary j u d gm en t o n n eg l i g en t en tru s t m en t an d ne g l i g en t s u p erv i s i o n cl ai m s

b ecau se t h ere was n o ev id en ce t hat t h e p aren t s k n ew o r sh o ul d h av e k no wn t h at t h ei r ch i l d

h a d a pro cl i v i t y or p ro p en s i t y t o u s e t h e ATV, or al l o w o t h ers to u s e i t

, w i t h o u t t h e i r

p erm i s s i o n an d p res en ce) (ci t at i o n an d p u n ct u at i o n o m it ted ). See al s o D en t v. S mi t h

, 1 7 2

Ga. A p p. 90

, 9 2 -9 3 (3 22 SE2 d 1 0 0 ) (1 9 8 4 ) (p aren t s en t it l ed t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t wh en

t h ey di d n o t fu rn is h or m ak e av ai l ab l e a BB g un

, an d t h ere was n o ev i d en ce t h at t h e ch i l d

h ad an y p ro cl i v i t y o r pro pen s i t y fo r p l ay i ng wi th i t ); M u s e v. Oz men t

, 1 5 2 Ga. Ap p

. 8 9 6

, 8 9 8 -8 9 9 (2 6 4 SE2 d 3 2 8 ) (1 9 8 0 ) (t h e fat h er was en t i t l ed t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t wh ere t h e

ev i d en ce s h o wed h e d i d n o t k n o w o f an y p ro cl i v i t y o f t h e s o n fo r t ak i n g a go l f cl u b o u t o f

an u nl o ck ed s t o rag e b u i l di ng an d s wi n g i n g i t i n t h e p res en ce o f o t h ers ).

12W h ere l i ab il i t y i s b as ed o n p aren ts ’ al l eg ed fai l u re t o s u p erv i s e o r

co n t ro l t h ei r ch i l d

, a k ey q u es t i o n i s t he fo res eeab i l it y o f t he h arm

s u ffered b y t h e p l ai n t i ff, t h at i s , wh et h er t h e p aren t s h ad k n o wl ed ge o f

fact s fro m

wh i ch t h ey sh o u l d h av e reas on ab ly an t i ci p at ed t hat h arm t o

an o t her wo u l d res u l t u n les s t h ey co n t ro l led t h ei r ch i l d ’ s co n d u ct

. T he

t ru e t es t o f p aren t al n eg l i g en ce vel n o n is wh et h er in t he ex erci s e o f

o rd i nary care h e s h o u l d hav e an ti ci p at ed th at h arm wo ul d res u lt fro m th e

u n s u p erv is ed act i v it i es o f t h e ch il d an d wh et h er, if so

, h e ex erci s ed th e

p ro p er d eg ree o f care t o gu ard ag ai n st t h i s res ul t

. Th e l ev el o f care t hat

i s d u e n eces s ari ly d ep en d s o n th e ci rcu m s t an ces

, wh i ch m ay i n vo l v e an

i n h eren t l y d an g ero u s i ns t ru m en t al i t y

, a co m m o n l y -av ai lab l e o b

ject t hat

o n l y b eco m es dan g e r o u s i f i t i s i n ten t i o n al ly u s ed t o cau s e harm o r i s

h an d l ed i n an i m

p ro p er an d d an g ero us m an n er, or n o in s t ru m en t al it y at

a l l

. Wh et h er p aren t s fai l ed t o u s e o rd i n ary care in s u perv i s i n g o r

co n t ro ll i n g t hei r ch i l d i s g en eral l y a q u es t i o n fo r t he ju ry wh en th e

ci rcu m s t an ces s u p p o rt an i n feren ce t h at t he p aren t s were on n ot i ce t h at

,

a b sen t t h ei r in t erv en t i on

, i n ju ry was l i k el y to res u l t fro m t he ch il d ’ s

co n d u ct

.

Bo s to n

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 9 3-8 94 (1 ) (ci t at io n s

, p un ct u at io n, an d fo o t n o t es o m i t t ed ).

(c) Neg l i g en t In st r u ct i on a n d

Tr a i n i n g

“ To es t ab l i sh a n eg l ig en t t rai n i n g cl ai m

, a pl ai n t i ff m u s t d em o n s t rat e t h at

i n ad eq u at e t rai n i ng c a

use d a r e a sona

bly fo res eeab l e i n

j u ry

. ” Ad va n ced Di s

p o s a l S r vs

.

At l a n t a

, LLC v. Ma r cz a k

, 3 59 Ga. Ap p

. 3 16

, 3 1 9 (2 ) (8 5 7 SE2 d 4 9 4 ) (2 0 2 1 ); s ee al s o

13Tyn er

v. Ma t ta -Tr o n co s o

, 3 0 5 Ga. 4 8 0

, 4 8 8 (3 ) (8 2 6 SE2 d 1 0 0) (2 01 9 ) (“ [W ] i t h o ut

reas on ab l e fo res eeab i l i t y

— a h al l m ark o f p ro x i m at e cau s e

— t h ere ex i s t s no g en u i n e

i s su e o f m at eri al fact as t o . . . cau s at i o n .”).

3

. Ex am i n i ng t h e i s s u es b e f o r e u s i n l i g h t o f t h e at t en d an t fact s an d t h e

p ri n ci p l es o f l aw d i s c u s s ed in Di v i s i o n 2

, we co n cl u d e t h at th e t ri al co u rt erred in

d en y i n g t h e Defen d an t s’ m o t i o n fo r su m m ary ju dg m en t o n Pl ai nt i ff’ s p aren t al

n eg li g en ce cl ai m s

.

Th e rel ev an t reco r d is u n d i s p u t ed an d refl ect s t hat P. S.’ s p aren t s t au g h t h i m

h o w to ri d e a b i cy cl e wh en h e was fo u r y ears o l d

, ap p ro xi m at el y s i x y ears p ri o r t o t h e

i n ci d en t

. He fi rs t s t art ed ri d in g a b i cy cl e u n acco m p an ied wh en h e w as ei g h t y ears o l d.

Ap art fro m t h e fal l s on e ex p eri en ces wh en l earn i n g to ri d e a b i cy cl e, P. S. h ad n ev er

b een i n v o l v ed i n an acci d en t

. Th e Defen d an t s ex p lai n ed t hat t h ey were co n fi d en t o f

P. S.’ s ab i li t y t o ri d e a b i c yc l e a n d h ad t au g h t h i m h o w t o ri d e s afel y o n t h e ro ad

,

i n cl u d i n g b ei n g aware o f h i s s u rro un d i ng s

, fo l l o wi n g traffi c si g n s

, an d ch eck i n g fo r

t raffi c b y l o o k i n g i n b ot h d i rect i o n s befo re cro s s i n g a s t reet

. P. S.’ s p aren t s were n ot

wi t h hi m at th e t i m e o f t h e i n ci d en t

. Bu t

, th ey h ad i ns t ru ct ed P

. S

. t o c r o s s at a

cro s s wal k wh en av ai l ab l e, an d i f a cro s s w al k w as n o t an o p t i o n

, th en t o ch eck fo r

t raffi c b o t h way s an d cro s s t h e s t reet wh en i t was cl ear o f t raffi c. Al t h o u g h t h e

14Defen d an t s p rev i o u s ly h ad s een P. S. cro s s t h e s t reet i n t h e m id d l e of t he ro ad

, rat h er

t h a n a t an i n t ers ect i o n or a m ark ed cro s s wal k

, t h e reco rd i s s i len t as to wh at

, i f

an y t h i n g

, res u l t ed fro m

t h i s act i o n , an d h o w t h i s s h o ul d h av e g i v en t h e Defen d an t s

“ reas o n t o an t i ci pat e t he in ju ry wh i ch i n fact o ccu r r e d ” i n th i s cas e. 9 Hi l l

, 1 6 0 Ga.

Ap p . at 1 5 2

.

Th ere al s o is n o ev i d en ce i n t h e reco rd t h at th e b i cy cl e h ad an y m ech an i cal

d efect s

, t hat i t was u s ed im p ro perl y

, o r t h at i t was u n s u i t ab l e fo r a b o y o f P. S.’ s ag e,

h ei g h t

, o r wei g h t

. Al th o u g h P. S. was ri d i n g h i s bro t h er’ s b i cy cl e at th e ti m e o f t h e

acci den t

, wh i ch w as b i g g er t h an h i s own b icy cl e, h e h ad ri d d en h i s bro t h er’ s b i cy cl e

m o re t han t h ree o r fo u r t i m es i n t h e p as t wi t h o u t i n ci d en t

. Ad d i t i o n al ly

, th ere i s n o

ev i d en ce t hat P. S. w as p hy s ical l y i m p ai red o r t h at h e l ack ed t h e b a s i c s k il l s o f an

av erag e b o y hi s ag e. Th ere al s o i s n o i n d i cat i o n t h at P. S. was ri d i ng t he b i cy cl e i n an

area in ap p ro p ri at e fo r t h at u s e o r t h at h e d i so b ey ed hi s p aren t s ’ i n st ru ct io n s o n h o w

9 T h e cl o s es t cro ss wa l k t o t h e s cen e o f t h e acci d en t o n Lak es ho re Dri v e was

ap p ro xi m at el y hal f a m i l e away

. Th e p art i es d i s p u t e t h e l eg al i t y o f P. S.’ s act i o n s o f ri d i n g

o n a s i d ewal k an d cro s s i n g fro m a p l ace o t h er t h an an in t ers ect io n o r cro s s wal k

. Pl ai n t i ff

fu rt h er u rg es t h at we d i sreg ard t h e Defen d an t s ’ co n t en t i o n s on t h es e i ss u es as t h ey were

n o t rai s ed p ro p erl y i n th e t ri al co u rt

. Ho w ev er, we do no t r e a c h t h es e q ues t i o n s

. Ou r

an al y s i s h i n g es n o t o n wh at P. S. d i d o r d i d n o t d o an d t h e leg al i t y o f th e s am e, b u t rat h er

o n t h e ad eq u acy

o f wh at h is p aren t s d i d o r d i d n ot d o t o an ti ci p at e an d g u ard ag ai ns t t h e

ri s k s o f P. S

. ’s a c t i o n s b y fu rn i s h i n g h i m wi t h a b icy cl e an d al lo wi n g h i m t o ri d e

u n s u p erv i sed

.

15t o ri d e s afel y

. 1 0 Hi s p aren t s had a d v i s ed h i m t o ri de on t h e s i d ewal k i f av ai l ab l e,

r a t h e r t h a n t h e st reet

, t o av o i d b ei ng h i t b y a car. If peo p l e were wal k in g o n t h e

s i dewal k

, P. S. wo ul d g et off t h e s i d ewal k an d get i n t h e s t reet t o g o aro u n d t h em

, an d

t h en get b ack o n t h e s i d ewal k

. T h e Defen d an t s h ad o n l y m o v ed t o t h e Ci t y o f

Av o n d al e Es t at es a few week s b efo re t h e acci d en t

, an d t h e D e fen d an t s co u l d n ot

recal l wh et h er t h ey h ad i n st ru ct ed P. S. o n h o w t o ri d e i n an area wh ere t here were a

l o t o f p ark ed cars

, or t o l o o k o u t fo r o t her b i cy cl i st s o n t h e ro ad

. Nev ert h e l e s s

, t h e

Defen d a n t s w ere co n fi d en t i n P. S.’ s b i k e-ri d i n g ab i l i t i es an d t ru s t ed h i m t o ri d e a

b i cy cl e i n a s afe m an n er.

In i t s o rd er d en y i n g t h e Defen d an t s ’ m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n t h e

p aren t al n eg l i g en ce cl ai m s, t h e t ri al co u rt fo un d th at w h et h er p aren t s h av e ex erci s ed

o rd i n ary care i n en t ru s t i n g a b i cy cl e t o a ch i ld t o r i d e u n s u p erv i s ed i s wh o l l y

d ep en d en t o n m an y

v ari ab l es , i n cl u d i ng “ t h e p art i cu lar ch i l d at i s su e, t h e p art i cu l ar

t i m e at i s s u e, an d t h e p art i cu l ar p l ace at i s su e[.] ” Ho w ev er, as d i scu s s ed ab o v e,

1 0 Ev en as su m i ng

, w i th o u t d eci di n g, th at P. S. d i s o b ey ed h is pare n t s i n f ai l i n g t o

co n fi rm n o o n co m in g t raffi c (as h is vi ew o f o n co m i n g t raffi c was ob s tru ct ed as h e l o o k ed

o v er t h e p ark ed cars an d en tered t h e ro ad ), s u ch act i o n wo u l d g o t o h is n eg l i g en ce, as

o p p o s ed t o an y

n eg li g en ce o n t he p art o f t h e Defen d an t s.

16[w] h ere i n j u ry i s cau s e d b y a n i n st ru m en t al i ty m ad e acces s i b l e to th e

ch i l d b y t he p ar e n t

, . . . t h e t ru e t es t o f p aren t al n eg l ig en ce v el n o n i s

wh et h er i n t h e ex erci s e o f o rd i n ary care h e s ho u ld h av e an t i ci p at ed t hat

h arm wo u l d res u l t fro m t h e u n s u p e r v i s e d act iv i t i es o f th e ch i l d an d

w h e t h er, i f s o

, h e ex erci s ed t h e pro p er d eg ree o f care t o g u ard ag a i n s t

t h i s res u l t

.

Hi l l

, 1 6 0 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 5 1

. Here, wh ere t h e reco rd ev id en ce s h o w s th at t h e Defen d an t s

ex erci s ed care i n t each i n g P. S. t o ri de a bi cy cl e safel y

, an d P. S. h ad d o ne s o

—

s u p erv i s ed an d u n su p erv is ed

— fo r s ix y ears wi t h o ut in ci d en t

, Pl ai n t i ff fai l ed t o s h o w

t h at t h e Defen dan t s d i d n o t m eet t h e s t an d ard o f care i n en t ru s t i n g P. S

. wi t h t h e

b i cy cl e.

Si m i l arl y

, wi t h res p ect t o Pl ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s co n cern i n g th e Defenda nts ’ al l eg ed

f a i l u r e t o s u perv i s e or co n t ro l P. S., o r p ro p erl y t rai n h i m o n ri d i ng a b i cy cl e o n a

p u b l i c ro ad way

, “ a k ey q ues t i o n i s t h e fo res eeab i l i t y o f t h e h arm s u ffered b y t h e

p l ai n t i ff, t h at i s

, wh et h er t h e paren t s h ad kn o w l ed g e o f fact s fro m wh i ch t h ey s h o u ld

h av e reas o n ab ly an ti ci p at ed t h at h arm t o an o t her wo u l d res u l t un l es s t hey co n t ro l l ed

t h e ir ch i ld ’ s co n d u ct .” B o s to n

, 3 2 9 Ga. Ap p

. at 8 9 3 (1 ). See al s o Do e I v. Y o u n g

W o men ’s Ch ri s t i a n As s n

. o

f Gr e a t e r A t la nt a

, In c.

, 32 1 G a. Ap p

. 4 0 3, 4 08 (2 ) (7 4 0

SE2 d 4 53 ) (2 0 1 3 ) (“ In o rd er t o d efeat s u m m ary ju d g m en t o n a c l a i m f o r n eg l i g en t

17t rai n in g an d s u p erv i s i o n

, a p l ai nt i ff m u s t p ro du ce s o m e ev id en ce o f i n ci d en t s s i m i l ar

t o t he b eh av i or t h at was t h e cau s e o f t h e i n ju ry at i s su e.”) (ci t at io n an d p u n ct u at i o n

o m it t ed ). Bas ed o n t h e reco rd b efo re u s

, t h ere i s n o i n d icat i o n t h at t h e Defen d an t s h ad

an y reas o n t o an t i ci p at e t h a t P

. S. wo u l d b e i n v ol v ed i n a b i cy cl e acci d en t s u ch as

o c c u r r e d h ere, an d Pl ai n t iff fai l ed t o p res en t ev id en ce s u ffi ci en t t o rai se a ju ry

q u es ti o n o n t h i s i ss ue. 1 1

Th ere i s n o t ru e wi nn er i n t h i s t rag ic cas e. Th e l aw d o es n ot i n su l at e p aren t s

fro m d i rect l i ab i li t y fo r al l n eg li g en t act s o f th ei r ch i l d ren

. No r do es it s u b ject p aren t s

t o l iab i l i ty ev ery t i m e a ch i l d c o m m i t s a n eg l i g en t act : t h ere are l eg al l i m i t s o n

p aren t al l i a b i l i t y ro o t ed i n t h e co n cep t s o f reas o n ab l en es s an d fo res eeab i l i t y

— n o

o n e i s ab l e t o an ti ci p at e an d g u ard ag ai n s t ev ery p o s s i b l e ci rcu m s t an ce ch i l d ren m ay

en co un t er o r act i o n th ey m ay tak e. As t he Defen d an t s h i gh l i g h t

, “ p u rch as i n g a b i cy cl e

fo r a ch i l d d o es n ot au to m at i cal l y su b j ect p aren ts t o a ju ry t ri al if t h ei r ch i ld i s i n an

acci den t wh i l e ri d i n g in t hei r own ne i g h b o rh o o d .” “ Ri di n g a b i cy cl e h as b eco m e,

p ract i cal l y s p eak i n g

, a n at ural s t ag e o f ev ery ch i l d ’ s d ev el o pm en t. It i s v ery co m m o n

1 1 Pl ai n t i ff as s ert s t h at t h e Defen d an t s sh o ul d n o t b e al l o wed t o b en efi t fro m t h e “ o n e

f r e e b i t e r u l e” s i m

pl y b ecau s e P. S. h ad n ev er b een i n v o lv ed i n an acci d en t p ri o r t o t h e

i n s t an t in ci d en t wh i l e ri d i n g h i s b i cy cl e. W e fi n d t h i s st at em en t a b ro ad si m p l i fi cat i o n o f

o u r ru li n g

. Si m

p ly p u t

, as e x p l ai ned ab o v e, b as ed o n t he sp eci fi c fact s o f th i s cas e, t h e

Defen d an t s h ad n o reas o n t o an ti ci p at e o r g u ard ag ai ns t t h e acci d en t t h at o ccu rred h ere.

18t o s ee v ery y o u ng ch i ld ren

. . . r i d i n g u n as s i s t ed

. Al t h o u g h a ch i l d ’ s b i cy cl e i s a

m ach i n e, i t i s n o t co m

p l ex .” S an t a l u ci a v. Co u n ty o

f Br o o me

, 2 0 5 AD 2 d 9 6 9

, 9 7 0

-

9 7 1 (6 1 3 NYS2 d 77 4 ) (1 9 9 4). O u r ru l i n g i s i n no way i n t en d ed t o serv e as a b l an k et

ru l e t h at p aren t s are au t o m at i cal l y i m m u n e fro m d am ag es fo r d i rect n eg li g en ce cla i m s

i f a ch i ld g et s in t o an acci d en t wh i l e ri d i n g a b ik e u ns u p erv i s ed

. Here, t h ere i s n o

e v id en ce t h at th e Defen d an t s were aware t h at P. S. m i g h t n o t b e ab l e to co n t r o l h i s

b i cy cl e wh i l e ri d i n g o n a p u b l ic ro ad way w i t ho u t p laci n g t hi rd p art i es a t u n reas o n ab l e

ri sk

. Un d er t h e s p eci fi c ci rcu m s t an ces herei n, we h ol d t h at t h e Defen d an t s are n ot

l i ab l e as a m at t er o f l aw fo r t h e i n s t a n t i n ci d en t “ wh ere t here [was ] n o d an g ero u s

p ro cl i v i ty [b y P. S.] k no wn t o [t h e Defen dan t s ] an d n o reas o n to an t i ci p at e t h e i n ju ry

wh i ch i n fact o ccu rred

. ” Hi l l

, 1 6 0 Ga. Ap p . at 1 5 2

.

Acco rd i ng l y

, we rev ers e t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s d en i al o f t h e Defen d an ts ’ m o t i o n fo r

s u m m ary ju d g m en t ag ai n st Pl ai n t i ff’ s cl ai m s fo r n eg l i g en t en t ru st m en t

, n eg l i g en t

s u p erv i s i o n , an d n eg li g en t trai ni n g an d i n st ru ct io n

.

Ju d g men t r ever sed . Ba r n es , P. J., a n d

Ma r kl e, J., co n cu r

.

19