Anderson v. Stream

295 N.W.2d 595 (1980)

From our private database of 46,000+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Anderson v. Stream

Minnesota Supreme Court
295 N.W.2d 595 (1980)

  • Written by Tammy Boggs, JD

Facts

Two cases were consolidated for review by the Minnesota Supreme Court. In Anderson v. Stream, Edward and Ruth Anderson were parents to 23-month-old Breanna Anderson (plaintiff). The Anderson family shared a common driveway with neighbors Edna and Martin Stream (defendants). The Andersons allowed Breanna to play outside for 10 to 15 minutes “in the back,” while the parents stayed inside the house. Breanna apparently wandered into the driveway because she was injured when Edna backed her automobile into Breanna. Edward, on Breanna’s behalf, sued the Streams for damages, and the Streams sought contribution and indemnity from the Andersons for negligent supervision. On a motion for summary judgment, the trial court ruled that the Andersons were immune to tort liability from their child. The Streams appealed. In Nuessle v. Nuessle, James Nuessle (defendant) took his three-year-old son Michael Nuessle (plaintiff) on an errand to a drugstore. Within a very short timeframe, Michael was no longer at James’s side. James urgently looked for him, but Michael had walked into a crosswalk and was hit by a car. Michael sustained severe injuries. Michael sued James for damages, but on a motion for summary judgment, the trial court held that Michael’s claim was barred by the doctrine of parental immunity. Michael appealed. Both appeals raised issues relating to the doctrine of parental immunity.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Scott, J.)

Dissent (Rogosheske, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 743,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,000 briefs, keyed to 986 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 743,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,000 briefs - keyed to 986 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership