What the court clarified
The court explained that parental relationship alone does not automatically establish liability; the supervisory duty and its discharge must be examined.
Does parental status alone establish liability where harm was caused by a person not legally responsible for the act?
Determine who in fact owed the duty, what risk was reasonably foreseeable and which specific precaution was omitted. Check the version of law in force when the harm occurred; do not transplant modern wording onto historical facts.
Continue reading belowMaterial facts
The injured claimant sought damages from persons argued to have a duty to supervise the individual whose conduct caused injury. The actor’s culpability was excluded, so the courts had to assess whether a distinct duty of supervision and breach by the parents had been shown.
Court reasoning and holding
Interpreting the historic version of Civil Code article 995, the court required examination of an actual duty of supervision, the reasonable standard in the circumstances and evidence of breach. A parental or family relationship on its own was not sufficient to impose automatic liability.
Practical application: what to examine
Determine who in fact owed the duty, what risk was reasonably foreseeable and which specific precaution was omitted. Check the version of law in force when the harm occurred; do not transplant modern wording onto historical facts.
Limits of the precedent
The decision concerned wording effective before 20 March 2015; do not assume it applies unchanged today.
Provisions considered by the court
Historic Civil Code article 995
Historic provisions cited by the court may differ from present law. Consult the official legislative gazette for the current text. matsne.gov.ge
Read the primary decision
The note is grounded in a published Supreme Court explanation and decision. Review the full document when checking its reasoning, procedural outcome and factual context.