Case Summary: Goodvin v Penson

Parents are not generally liable for the negligence or misconduct of their adult children, including in a social host liquor case.

Goodvin v Penson, 2019 ABQB 867, per Schlosser, Master

Facts + Issues

The Defendants Russell and Shelly Penson owned a acreage in rural Alberta. They left the acreage for Calgary on April 29, 2016. That evening, their 21 year old son Cole hosted a party on the premises where drinking took place. The only knowledge that the parent Pensons had that their son would be entertaining guests on the property that night came from a text from their son to the effect that he “might have people over for cards or something”.

At the party, Cole Penson and the Plaintiff Devn Goodvin (age 22) were drinking. Cole was driving his father's truck on the property when he collided with Goodvin who was driving an ATV, resulting in serious injury to Goodvin.

Goodvin claimed against Cole Penson in negligence and occupiers' liability. He claimed against the Penson parents in negligence, for:

Failing to supervise the party; Failing to instruct their son not to drive drunk; Failing to take away the keys for the truck; and Failing to impose restrictions on the party-goers. In an Affidavit, Goodvin deposed that a third party (Jobson) was well aware of a propensity in Cole Penson to drink and drive.The Penson parents applied for summary dismissal of the Goodvin's claim against them for all causes of action other than their statutory vicarious liability for the negligence of their son in driving the truck.

HELD: For the Defendant Penson parents; action against them dismissed except for the possibility of their statutory vicarious liability for their son as the truck's driver.

The Court held that parents cannot be vicariously liable for the acts or ommissions of their adult children. To be liable the parents must be directly liable in their own right:

5 The starting point is that parents are not vicariously liable for the acts or omissions of their adult children: Taylor [v. King 1993 CarswellBC 209 (B.C. C.A.)];, para 44; Segstro [(Guardian ad Litem of) v. McLean (Guardian ad Litem of), 1990 CarswellBC 1809 (B.C. S.C.)], para 70; Lafarge [v. Blakney 1978 CarswellNB 85 (N.B. C.A.)], para 12; G(J) [(Guardian & Trustee of) v. Strathcona (County), 2004 ABQB 378 (Alta. Q.B.) ;], para 168; Kim [v. Thammavong, 2007 CarswellOnt 7848 (Ont. S.C.J], paras 28-30; Ferrier [v. Hubbert, 2015 ONSC 5286], para 63; and Childs [v. Desormeaux, 2006 SCC 18], para...