Zikely v. Zikely, 98 App. Div. 2d 815 (1983) p189.

Subject:

Duty: parental duty

Infant plaintiff was injured when the defendant parent turned on a hot water faucet in a tub to prepare a bath and then left the room. The child, left unsupervised, wandered into the bathroom and fell into or otherwise entered the tub, suffering severe burns. The proximate cause of the injury was the negligent supervision of the infant.

The complaint was dismissed. This dismissal is what is on appeal.

Should this case be taken out of the general Holodock principle of non-liability for negligent supervision by a parent of a child by arguing that in this case the dangerous condition was created by the parent?

Negligent supervision of a child by a parent is a nonliability situation.

This case falls within the Holodock principle of non liability for negligent supervision by a parent of a child.

Cannot hold parent’s liable. To do so would subject him to potential liability in an unsupervised child came in contact with an common daily household hazards in a manner which resulted in injury.

Dissent: this case differs from Holodock because the parent had control of the situation that caused the injury. In other cases in which parents are granted non-liability, the child was always injured by something which was outside the control of the parent.