Young, Dumb, and Full of Torts

Gather round kids, it's story time.

Growing up in rural North Carolina was sweet. I spent a lot of my childhood playing in the woods, which were expansive. One day when I was around ten, a friend and I found a junkyard hidden among the Pines. We quickly located a crowbar and started smashing car windows. For what seemed like hours, I had the time of my life. It was all sweat, violence, broken glass, cussing, blood, and loud noises. What more could a young boy want? We worked our way up to the front of the junkyard, and finally the adjoining used car lot. Thank God we were tuckered out by then. By the time we started destroying the cars that had "for sale" signs on them, I could barely swing the crowbar. No longer able to wreak havoc with our usual panache, we retired.

The next day, my idiot friend went back during business hours and got his ass caught. He proceeded to rat me out. My parents agreed to pony up $900 (in 1991!) for the previous day's destruction. I got a tanned ass and a long lesson on respecting property.

What were my parents legal obligations in this scenario? As we will see today, they could have refused to pay on the grounds that I was too young to know any better. They would probably be sued and the whole thing would end up in court. I'm not sure who would have won, but my point is that my parents had a legal leg to stand on.

I'm proud to say that Mom and Dad never considered refusing to pay for the windows. They felt responsible for making restitution, and impressing upon me the consequences of my actions. But not all parents are compelled by the same moral obligations. And some children engage in tortious conduct that isn't nearly as clear cut as my example.

Are parents liable?
In general, no. But, based on the actions of their children, parents can be sued for statutory torts. Legally, parents do have a duty to control their children to some degree.

Why would you sue a kid? They don't have any money.
Someone with dough will be named in the suit. For example, parents and/or homeowners insurance could end up paying. If not strictly liable, they are at least financially responsible.

Ohio and the Rule of Sevens
1. Children under 7 cannot be found liable under any circumstance. Their parents can still be liable for statutory torts.
2. The state assumes that children between the ages of 7-14 have no capability for negligence. However, prosecution can prove otherwise.
3. The state assumes that residents between the ages of 14-21 are capable of negligence. Again, defense can disprove this.

Robinson v. Lindsay (1979)

Facts
A thirteen year-old boy was driving a snowmobile. He was pulling an eleven-year old on an innertube. The younger child injured her thumb. Her parents filed suit against the thirteen year-old.

Question
Should a child operating a snowmobile be held to an adult standard of care?

Holding
Yes

Reasoning
Usually a child will be held to a child’s standard of care. However, children engaging in adult activites will be held to an adult standard of care. The court will decide what activities are "adult" in nature. Driving a snowmobile is an adult activity.

And the winner is...
The girl and her parents.

Notes
-The boy's father was sued as well. The plaintiff argued that giving a child the keys to a snowmobile was negligent entrustment. No details on how that played out, just thought it was a good example of parent liability.

-Bad news for all the underage drinkers. Obviously, they are committing a crime. But drinking alcohol-which is clearly an adult activity-also opens them up to civil charges.

summarized from Life of a Law Student