Court Opinion

ID: 9679162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:43:07.587162+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:10.465251
License: Public Domain

Lee, J.
Dissenting:
With reference to the duty of a parent so to control his minor child as to prevent it from creating an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to others, the Supreme Court of Oregon, in 1945, in the case of Gossett v. Van Egmond, 155 Pac. 2d 304 said: “It is the general rule that where *165a parent’s negligence makes it possible for Ms child to gain control of an agency which, in the child’s incompetent hands, may become dangerous to others, he may be held liable for resulting injuries.”
On the same question, 67 C. J. S., Parent and Child, Sec. 68, p. 798, in part says: “As a general rule, a parent may be liable for an injury which is directly caused by the child, where the parent’s negligence has made it possible for the child to cause the injury complained of and probable that the child would do so, as where the parent negligently permits a young child to use or have access to firearms or other dangerous weapons, * * (Emphasis supplied.)
The majority opinion concedes that “a BB gun accompanied by the shots or ammunition therefor in the hands of a seven year old child would constitute a dangerous instrumentality. ’ ’
It does seem that, of all the gifts now available, a BB gun and its accompanying ammunition would be the last thing in the world that a grandfather would give Ms seven year old grandson. TMs casualty occurred slightly over a month after the gun came into the hands of the youngster. It is true that the evidence showed that he admonished his grandson to be careful with it. But it would be poor consolation to the victim of a rattlesnake bite that the donor of such a venomous reptile told his immature donee, at the time of making the gift as a pet, to be careful with the rattler.
It must be remembered that both the gun and the ammunition belonged to the boy, and that he had been permitted to shoot the gun when one of his parents was along. The father and mother both worked. It is true that they engaged the services of a maid to look after their children during their absence, but there is no claim that the parents, at any time, ever instructed the maid to see that the boy did not use the gun.
*166The parents permitted the boy to keep the gun in his room. It is true that they did not give him the shot or ammunition — they placed it in a dresser drawer in their room.
Undoubtedly they had some awareness of the potential danger from a seven year old boy and a BB gun and ammunition for it. The father said that he “hid” the ammunition in the drawer “under some of his clothes”. But the boy knew there was shot or ammunition for the BB around the house. More than that, in my opinion, it is common knowledge that the bureau or dresser in the bedroom of father and mother serves as the repository for all articles that are put up for safekeeping. Most likely that would be the first place to which a seven year old boy would go in search of his ammunition for his BB gun.
The test is whether the parents negligently permitted the boy to have access to a dangerous weapon. It is my opinion that, as a legal proposition, there was an issue for the jury to say whether the parents, under these circumstances, negligently permitted their son to have access to this dangerous instrumentality.
The alleged hiding of the ammunition came from the mouth of the father. As was said in Gossett v. Yan Egmond, supra: “It is true that the court should not refuse to direct a verdict merely because the evidence in support of the motion comes from the mouths of interested witnesses, but, as a general rule, it is for the jury to say whether or not a prima facie case, based upon inference, has been overcome. Only in extreme instances, when but one reasonable inference can be drawn from the facts, should the court direct a verdict.”
In my opinion, it should be reasonably foreseen that some injury, not necessarily this one nor the manner in which it was received, would result, and that the jury could have so found. Cumberland Telephone & Telegraph Co. et al v. Woodham, 99 Miss. 318, 54 So. 890; *167Mathews v. Thompson, 231 Miss. 258, 95 So. 2d 438. Since it is not claimed that the maid was required to see that the hoy did not take the gun out, it is obvious that the required inference, invoked on account of her absence, and referred to in the majority opinion, vanishes.
With deference, I would reverse and remand for a new trial.
Kyle, J., joins in this dissent.