Legal Opinion

Zarilla v. Pennachio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided December 27, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

A parent owes a duty to protect third parties from harm that is clearly foreseeable from his or her child’s improvident use or operation of a dangerous instrument, where such use is found to be subject to the parent’s control (see Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d 647, 653 [2001]; LaTorre v Genesee Mgt., 90 NY2d 576, 582 [1997]; Nolechek v Gesuale, 46 NY2d 332, 340 [1978]). “[I]tems that are commonly used by children, of suitable age in a manner consistent with their intended use, may not, as a matter of *1041law, be classified as dangerous instruments” (Rios v Smith, 95 NY2d at 653).

Here, the defendant made…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Alvarez v. Prospect HospitalNew York Court of Appeals · 1986
  2. Nolechek v. GesualeNew York Court of Appeals · 1978
  3. Rios v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
  4. LaTorre v. Genesee Management, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1997
  5. Nyhus v. ValentinoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Reich v. Alexander's, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
  2. Koulajian v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
  3. Koulajian v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API