This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The Roses (D) son W.R. was hired by the Popples (P) to babysit their two boys ages 9 and 6. Prior to engaging W.R. as a sitter, P knew that he had a history of physically violent behavior. While babysitting the children, W.R. essentially raped the 9-year-old and forced the 6-year-old to watch. P filed suit claiming that D failed to warn them of W.R.'s known dangerous sexual propensities. D filed a motion for summary judgment and the trial court granted it as the only authorized form of compensation was under the parental vicarious liability statute which abrogated common law liability. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.