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

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

D rented from the Suttons (P) a home for his family. For Christmas 1968 he gave an inexpensive chemistry set to his 10-year-old son -- a co-defendant -- who performed experiments for about a year without mishap. On January 11, 1970, the boy took an electric popcorn popper to his bedroom and while using it to heat some chemicals a flame suddenly flared upward igniting nearby curtains causing damage to the house in the amount of $2,382.57. P which covered the subject premises with fire insurance, paid the loss, and then, as subrogee, brought this suit against D and his boy, alleging that D contributed to the cause of the fire by breaching a duty to prohibit his son from carrying on unsupervised chemical experiments in the bedroom. The trial court told the jury in Instruction No. 9 -- '. . . . Unless Ds prove to your satisfaction that they, or either of them, was not negligent, you should find in favor of Ps in the sum of $2,382.57.' The second instruction stated simply: 'This is a civil action prosecuted by P against Ds. P alleges that a fire was the result of the negligence of Ds. P alleges that John, III, improperly conducted his chemistry experiment and that D failed to exercise proper supervision. P alleges that the negligence of both Ds caused a fire resulting in damage in the amount of $2,382.57. Ds have filed separate answers in which they deny negligence on their part.' The verdict went to P finding D guilty but not the son. D appealed.

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

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