Court Opinion

ID: 9674325
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:26:38.599239+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.923315
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. In Bieker v. Owens, 234 Ark. 97, 99, 350 S. W. 2d 522 (1961), we held: “Since each human mind and personality is exclusively that of the individual possessing it, it would be unreasonable to place an absolute responsibility for the acts of another on any person. But where the parent (1) has the opportunity and ability to control a minor, and (2) has knowledge of the tendency or proclivity of the minor to commit acts which could normally be expected to cause injury to others, and (3) after having such opportunity, ability and knowledge has failed to exercise reasonable means of controlling the minor or appreciably reduce the likelihood of injury to others because of the minor’s acts, the parent should be made to respond to those who have been injured by such acts of the minor.” (Emphasis mine.) The rocket here involved is the little bottle rocket that some 200,000 or 300,000 children in this state annually fire on New Year’s Day and the Fourth of July (and some times in between). In other words, we have involved a children’s toy — i. e., one so recognized and permitted by law, see Ark. Stat. Ann. § 28-1701(2) (Supp. 1967). The majority is holding that the parents of those two or three hundred thousand children can be held responsible for storing or permitting such fireworks to be stored on their premises even though they have no reason to suspect that their children will use or attempt to use the fireworks so as to cause injury to others. The majority so holds even when the unmitigated evidence shows that the child involved had no tendency or proclivity to commit acts which could normally be expected to cause the accident that occurred. As can be seen the effect of today’s holding is to hold every parent absolutely responsible for injuries caused by fireworks contrary to the rule laid down in Bieker v. Owens, supra, and notwithstanding that the possession thereof is permitted by law. See Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-1701 (Supp. 1967). Nor can I find anything in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-1701 (Supp. 1967) to support the majority’s position, even though they have made the suggestion, because there is not even an allegation that the conduct of the parents in possessing and storing the fireworks was unlawful, and there is certainly no facts to sustain such an insinuation. For these reasons, I would affirm the summary judgment of the trial court in dismissing the action against Sherrell Shaver and his wife Anita Shaver. George Rose Smith and Jones, JJ., join in this dissent.