Legal Opinion
Dinsmore-Poff v. Alvord
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided February 5, 1999No. S-7935PublishedCited by 23 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
COMPTON, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
This appeal presents two novel questions. The first is whether we should adopt § 316 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which makes parents liable for negligently failing to prevent their children from intentionally-harming others. The second concerns the plaintiffs burden under § 316 of showing that a parent unreasonably failed to recognize a need to control his or her ehild, or did recognize such a need, but failed to make a reasonable attempt to meet it. The question is how specific and immediate the need to control the child must be to support…
2Cases cited40 opinions
- Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. General Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Webb v. City and Borough of SitkaAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
- Jennings v. StateAlaska Supreme Court · 1977
- French v. Jadon, Inc.Alaska Supreme Court · 1996
- Ellis v. D'AngeloCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1953
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- K.H. v. J.R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- Guerrero Ex Rel. Guerrero v. Alaska Housing Finance Corp.Alaska Supreme Court · 2000
- K.H. v. J.R.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
- State v. SandsnessAlaska Supreme Court · 2003
- P.G. v. State, Department of Health & Human Services, Division of Family & Youth ServicesAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.