Summary
permitting suit by infant plaintiff against his father premised on plaintiffs injuries when he struck an explosive nail gun cartridge with a hammer entrusted to him by his father
Summary of this case from Santoro v. DonnellyOpinion
Submitted February 7, 2001.
March 26, 2001.
In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated June 5, 2000, which denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
Kelly, Rode Kelly, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (George J. Wilson of counsel), for appellant.
Shayne, Dachs, Stanisci, Corker Sauer, Mineola, N.Y. (Jonathan A. Dachs of counsel), for respondents.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The infant plaintiff was entrusted by his father, the defendant herein, with a hammer and a container of nails which contained an "explosive nail gun cartridge". He was injured when he struck the cartridge with the hammer, causing the cartridge to explode. Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court correctly denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. While a child may not sue a parent for negligent supervision (see, Holodook v. Spencer, 36 N.Y.2d 35), the infant plaintiff possesses a cognizable claim that his injuries were proximately caused by the defendant's alleged breach of a duty of care owed to the world at large, one that exists outside of, and apart from, a family relationship (see, Leek v. McGlone, 140 A.D.2d 413; Semmens v. Hopper, 128 A.D.2d 767; Grivas v. Grivas, 113 A.D.2d 264; Hurst v. Titus, 77 A.D.2d 157; Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp., 51 A.D.2d 542). "The duty not to negligently maintain explosives is a duty owed to all and is not simply a duty emanating from the parent-child relationship" (Goedkoop v. Ward Pavement Corp., supra, at 543).