Court Opinion

ID: 9739390
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:14:21.17999+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:12.016877
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring in part ° and dissenting in part.
I concur with part I of the majority opinion but must dissent to part II.
While I do not disagree with the majority's statement of the duty imposed upon persons entrusted with the care of children, I do not find in the facts before the court a sufficient basis to establish that Pettigrews assumed that duty to Jeffrey Johnson on the day in question. Jeffrey went to Petti-grews uninvited that day to play with his friend. The boys played throughout the morning. At lunch Mr. and Mrs. Pettigrew discussed whether to send Jeffrey home because Joel had work to do in the afternoon. Mr. Pettigrew decided that Jeff might either go home or stay and assist Joel with his chores. This he communicated to Jeff. I do not find in such a casual arrangement an assumption of care for Jeffrey. While neither compensation nor any particular formality are necessary to impose the duty, the cireumstances must be such that an entrustment is clear. Those circumstances do not exist here.
I would therefore affirm the judgment.