Kerins v. Lima
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
680 N.E.2d 32 (1997)
- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Christopher Rule was a juvenile living in foster care with his foster parents, John and Jean Lima (defendants). One day, Christopher and two other children committed arson, destroying a building that Dona Kerins (plaintiff) owned. Kerins brought suit against the Limas under Massachusetts General Laws c. 231 § 85G. Section 85G provided that parents of an unemancipated child over the age of seven were liable for certain intentional conduct of their child that had certain results, such as damage to a person’s property. The law exempted parents from liability if the child was not in the parent’s custody due to a court order at the time of the child’s offending act. The Limas moved for dismissal or summary judgment, asserting that § 85G was not applicable to them as Christopher’s foster parents, a contractual relationship. A district court granted dismissal, and the appellate division affirmed and dismissed Kerins’s appeal. Kerins appealed, and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (the court) transferred the appeal sua sponte and considered whether foster parents were covered by § 85G. The court considered that § 85G departed from the common law and thus needed to be interpreted strictly. The court reviewed § 85G in consideration of the common law it overrode to ascertain what the word parent meant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Greaney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
