SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE

STATE OF HAMILTON
____________________________________
)
Jody Brown, a minor,
)
by George Brown, Plaintiff
)
)
v.
)
)
Sheila Brown,
)
Defendant
)
____________________________________)

Case No. 03-431

PLAINTIFFS MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
Statement of the Case

Comment [a1]: Your AMI Memo

should be in opposition to Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

Plaintiff, three-year-old Jody Brown, by and through her father, George Brown,
brought this action in tort to recover damages for injuries she sustained as a result of
alleged negligent supervision by Defendant, Sheila Brown. (Compl. at 1.)
Mr. Brown and the Defendant were divorced in 1997. (Pl.s Aff. at 1.) As part of
the divorce settlement, Mr. Brown agreed to give the Defendant sole title to their home.
He also agreed to give the Defendant ownership of a household liability insurance policy
in the amount of $300,000. By divorce decree, the Defendant received sole physical
custody of Mr. Browns daughter, Jody Brown. (Pl.s Aff. at 2.)
On May 5, 2002, Jodys eyes were seriously injured by poisonous insecticide
from a bottle that the Defendant had left just outside the gate to the backyard in their
home of Middletown, Hamilton. (Compl. at 2.) That morning, the Defendant had put
Jody outside to play, leaving her alone in the large yard area. The Defendant then
returned to the house to finish her breakfast and read the newspaper. During the next half

Comment [a2]: (Note: You will not

include the Statement of the Case section
in your AMI Memo but will in your
AMII.) Its good to begin the Statement
of the Case section by providing the
overall context for the rest of the story.
This can either be accomplished with this
kind of summary or by beginning with
the summary of procedural historysee
below.
Comment [a3]: The author has
depersonalized Defendant Sheila Brown
by referring to her simply as the
Defendant throughout much of this
memo. In contrast, the author has
personalized Jody Brown by referring to
her by name or as Plaintiff Jody
Brown.

hour, the Defendant occasionally glanced out at the yard and noticed Jody still playing
there. (Pl.s Aff. at 1.)
A half hour later, Jody suddenly screamed. (Pl.s Aff. at 2.) As the Defendant
came out from the house, she heard Jody crying hysterically and saw her wildly rubbing

Comment [a4]: Note that the author

has provided cites to the pleadings to
help the court find the specific facts. In a
more factually complicated argument as
in AMII, you should also cite to the
pleadings in this manner in the
Discussion Section. For AMI, you do not
need to do this.

her eyes. Jody had critically injured her eyes with the poisonous insecticide from the
bottle that the Defendant had left just beyond the gate. (Id. at 1.) Although the
Defendant brought Jody to the hospital shortly thereafter, the dangerous chemical had

Comment [a5]: Use of dependent

clause to downplay an adverse fact. Note
that this sentence is not the topic sentence
of the paragraph.

already seriously damaged Jodys eyes, resulting in permanent visual impairment and
medical expenses of more than $100,000. (Id.)
Mr. Brown initiated this lawsuit on behalf of his daughter on the basis that the
Defendant had negligently supervised their daughter. (Compl. at 1.) In response to the
complaint, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, claiming the defense of parental

Comment [a6]: In the next paragraph,

the author has appropriately summarized
the procedural history leading up to the
issue before the court. This paragraph
could come here at the end or at the
beginning of the Statement of the Case
section. Note that this paragraph is
structured from Plaintiffs point of view
and should not look the same in
Defendants memo.

immunity as a bar to the suit. (Def.s Mot. Dismiss.) This memorandum is submitted in
opposition to the Defendants motion to dismiss.

Argument
THIS COURT SHOULD DENY THE MOTION TO DISMISS AND ADOPT A
REASONABLE PARENT STANDARD TO GIVE PLAINTIFF JODY BROWN
THE RIGHT TO RECOVER FROM DEFENDANT FOR THE SERIOUS INJURIES
CAUSED BY THE DEFENDANTS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION.

A.

By refusing to apply the doctrine of parental immunity in the context of negligent

supervision, this trial court will reach a decision that is consistent with the very
policies that have already caused the Hamilton Supreme Judicial Court to
abrogate this doctrine in the context of motor vehicle negligence.
This court should refuse to apply the doctrine of parental immunity in the case

before the court so that Jody Brown, an unemancipated minor, can be compensated for

Comment [a7]: The main point

heading makes clear the procedural result
desired and the legal basis for that
procedural result. (You will learn about
point headings during AMII.)
Comment [a8]: The heading also
includes the policy supporting the overall
procedural and substantive result.
Whether policy could be included here
depends on how much space it takes to
describe the procedural and substantive
result, and will therefore vary from
problem to problem.
Comment [a9]: Note that this heading
summarizes the legal and policy
argument that follows and personalizes
it by referring to the Hamilton Supreme
Judicial Court.
Comment [a10]: The author has
taken a direct approach, telling the trial
court what it should do. The author could
also have taken a more indirect approach
by using the passive voice: The doctrine
. . . should be abrogated . . . . In general,
this is a matter of personal style and the
authors strategic sense of what will be
most likely to achieve a favorable result
for the client.

the permanent impairment to her vision caused by Defendants negligent supervision.

See Anderson v. Stream; Miller v. Leljedal. Public policy compels compensation for

Comment [a11]: Note that the author

does not rely on the point heading as the
topic sentence of the next paragraph,
but restates the ideas in a different
manner.

serious injuries; it does not favor immunity for tortfeasors. Store v. Rented. Jody
Browns eye injuries were serious, and a grave injustice would be done if Defendant were
allowed simply to walk away from her negligence under the cloak of a out-dated legal
doctrine. See Store; Anderson.
This States own Supreme Judicial Court has already abrogated parental immunity
in the context of motor vehicle negligence, reasoning that a childs right to a remedy for

Comment [a12]: The author here has

arguably been a bit strident, although
each advocate must find his or her own
style. A good principle for novice
advocates, though, is, Sound objective
but be persuasive.
Comment [a13]: This first paragraph
is a summary paragraph that makes clear
what the advocate is asking the court to
do substantively and why the court
should do so on the basis of policy. It
also is not abstract, but refers to the
parties and facts before the court.

injuries sustained in an automobile accident should not be defeated just because the
negligent party happens to be a parent. See Store. This is consistent with the trend in
numerous other jurisdictions across the country. See, e.g., France v. APA Transp. Co.;

Comment [a14]: The author then

goes on in the next several paragraphs to
develop in more depth why the court
should abrogate this doctrine in this
context on the basis of Hamilton
precedent, persuasive precedent, and
policy.

Superino v. Jacobs; Unah v. Martin (limiting recovery to extent of parents insurance

policy). Compensation for a childs injuries is no less important when the parents
negligence arises from insufficient supervision of the child than when it arises from a car

Comment [a15]: The author does not

provide parens for Store, France, and
Superino because the general principles
make clear the facts of these cases
injuries sustained in an auto accident.
The author does provide a paren forUnah
to the extent that it adds a twist.

accident. See, e.g., Anderson (permitting child to sue parents for negligent supervision
when child injured when neighbors car hit her as she was playing); Miller (permitting
child to sue parents for failing to instruct him to take care when child injured when truck
hit him as he was crossing highway at night). By joining with those courts in other states
that have completely abrogated the parental immunity doctrine, this court will fulfill the
public policy goal of compensating deserving children, like Jody Brown, whose injuries
are due to the negligent supervision of their parents. See Anderson; Miller.
Abrogating parental immunity in this case would further the policy of allowing
recovery for Jody Browns serious eye injuries yet not interfere with the preservation of

Comment [a16]: The author provides

parens here to describe thes e cases
because the facts as to negligent
supervision would vary from case to
case unlike the motor vehicle negligence
cases above.
Comment [a17]: While this whole
argument is really a policy argument (as
to whether or not the court should get rid
of the parental immu nity doctrine in this
context), and therefore the specific facts
of what happened to Jody Brown are not
all that important, the advocate does refer
to the Plaintiff throughout to personalize
the abstract legal argument. The author
also refers in places to Jody Browns
serious eye injuries to personalize the
idea that injured parties should be
allowed to recover.

family harmony. See Store; Miller. Although promoting family harmony has
sometimes been cited as a public policy underlying the parental immunity doctrine, that
rationale is no more applicable in this context than in that of motor vehicle negligence.

Comment [a18]: See is used

because these cases do not discuss Jody
Browns serious eye injuries.
Comment [a19]: Note use of
dependent clause to downplay a
particular point works well here because
the point is not too complicated and this
is not the first sentence of the paragraph.

Miller; Anderson; see Store. Indeed, far from weakening the stability of the family,
permitting compensation in cases like this one may actually strengthen family harmony
by paving the way for an insurance pay-out, thus safeguarding the familys financial
integrity. See Store; Anderson. Without lawsuits of this kind, family resources in cases
like the one before this court will very often be strained to meet the expenses for damages
incurred. See Store; Miller; Anderson.
Parental immunity is also in no way necessary to protect against the possibility of
fraud. See Store; see also Laurels v. Union (finding that fraud concerns were an

Comment [a20]: Note that the author

has used authority well. The author has
not cited the same cases after each
successive sentence. While sometimes
necessary, citing the same cases sentence
after sentence often means the author has
not chosen the very best cases to support
the ideas in each sentence.

insufficient rationale against abrogation of interspousal tort immunity). Although there

may be some risk of collusion among family members where insurance companies are
involved, the normal judicial processes are well equipped to detect and deal with the

Comment [a21]: A second example

of using a dependent clause.

remote possibility of deception. See Store; Unah; Miller. A few invalid claims simply
should not cause the courts to bar indiscriminately all claims most of which are likely to
be highly meritorious like the one before the court . Unah; Miller; Anderson.
Thus, the traditional objectives of the parental immunity rule should no longer
stand in the way of this courts completely abrogating parental immunity. See Store;
Gibson; Anderson. Given that the Supreme Judicial Court of Hamilton has already
recognized the need to compensate children for injuries arising from motor vehicle
negligence, this court should take the next step and now completely abrogate the

Comment [a22]: Note how the

advocate has personalized the argume nt
by referring to the Supreme Judicial
Court of Hamilton.

doctrine, so that Jody, and other children like her, can recover damages arising from their
parents negligent supervision. See Store; Anderson; Miller.
B.

This court should adopt the reasonable parent standard by which to judge a
parents negligence in order to achieve a balance between recognizing
Defendants discretion in rearing her child and Jody Browns pressing need to
recover damages for her serious injuries.
[Argument omitted.]

Comment [a23]: Summary paragraph

at the end of the argument.

Comment [a24]: The author begins

the point heading by articulating the
substantive result desired.
Comment [a25]: The author, again,
includes the underlying policy since it
wont make the heading too long. Note
that you may not always be able to
include so much policy in headings, when
the underlying legal problem is more
complex.

Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Defendants
Comment [a26]: In your AMI
Conclusion, remember to be accurate:
you want Defendants motion for
summary judgment to be denied. This is
the last thing the court will see . . . .

motion to dismiss be denied.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Attorney for the Plaintiff

October 12, 2005