BRUNNER v. HUTCHINSON DIV. LEAR-SIEGLER, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A manufacturer, sued for a child’s injury, sought contribution from the child’s father for negligent supervision. The court, predicting state law, held the father’s supervision was a privileged parental act, shielding him from liability and barring the manufacturer’s contribution claim.
Legal Significance: In a case of first impression, the court rejected absolute parental immunity, instead adopting the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895G approach. This establishes a parental privilege for acts of authority and discretion, specifically shielding negligent supervision from tort liability and third-party contribution claims.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Jeremiah Brunner, a 2.5-year-old child, accompanied his father, Brad Brunner, during farm work. The father was using a mechanical grain auger, manufactured by Lear-Siegler, to move corn. He placed Jeremiah in the cab of a truck, told him to stay put, and locked the door before walking to an adjoining grain bin to inspect the machinery, temporarily losing sight of his son. Upon returning, the father found Jeremiah near the auger with his right hand traumatically amputated. The child’s ward sued Lear-Siegler for products liability. Lear-Siegler then filed a third-party complaint against Brad Brunner and his family partnership, seeking contribution and/or indemnity based on the father’s alleged negligent supervision. The father moved for summary judgment, arguing that he was immune from such a claim. The case was before a federal district court on diversity jurisdiction, requiring it to interpret and apply South Dakota law on an issue of first impression.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under South Dakota law, does a parental privilege for acts of authority and discretion shield a parent from a third-party contribution claim based on the parent’s alleged negligent supervision of their child?
Yes. The court granted summary judgment for the third-party defendant father. The Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under South Dakota law, does a parental privilege for acts of authority and discretion shield a parent from a third-party contribution claim based on the parent’s alleged negligent supervision of their child?
Conclusion
This decision establishes that in South Dakota, the modern doctrine of parental Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ull
Legal Rule
A parent is not liable to their child for an act or Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolo
Legal Analysis
Sitting in diversity and facing an issue of first impression, the court Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in vol
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a case of first impression, the court predicted South Dakota