Are Arizona Parents Responsible When Their Child Causes an Injury?

In most cases where someone has been injured, or their property has been damaged, only the person who directly caused the harm can be held financially responsible. But, when the person responsible is a minor, the victim may want to seek compensation from the child's parents. Arizona law sometimes requires parents to pay for harm caused by their minor children. But the state also places significant limits on parental liability. If you've been hurt by someone under age 18, or someone is saying they were harmed by your child, you should know how state law applies to your situation.

Arizona's Parental Responsibility Statute

Like most states, Arizona has a parental responsibility statute that makes parents financially liable for their children's behavior in certain situations.

The statute applies when:

• a minor causes "any injury to the person or property of another" (including theft and shoplifting), and
• the injury was caused by the minor's "malicious or willful" actions.

In Arizona, a minor is anyone under 18 years old. The statute cannot be used to impose liability on parents for the actions of their adult children.

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-661 (2024); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 1-215(21) and (22) (2024).)

The Child Must Have Intended to Cause Harm

A minor's actions are "willful or malicious" when they are done with the intention of causing harm. This means that the statute cannot be used to make parents responsible for their child's negligence. (We'll talk in the next section about when a parent's own negligence can make them liable for property damage or injuries caused by their child.)

So, for example, if a child is running around and accidentally knocks someone over, the statute could not be used to seek compensation from the parents. But, if the child deliberately runs into someone and pushes them over, then that behavior could make the parents liable.

The Statute Applies to Adults With "Custody or Control" of a Child

In addition to parents, Arizona's statute says that legal guardians can be held liable for harm caused by a child under their care. But it does not apply to anyone--including a biological parent--who does not have "custody or control" of the child who caused the harm.

For example, an Arizona court ruled that a divorced father could not be held liable for the actions of his minor son. The court reasoned that the statute did not apply because the father did not have legal custody and his son lived more than 100 miles away.

Keep in mind that "control" of a child does not mean that the parent was physically present when the child caused the harm. Instead, it refers to the ability to influence a child's conduct--for example, by talking to or disciplining the child to address misbehavior.

(Pfaff By & Through Stalcup v. Ilstrup, 155 Ariz. 373 (Ct. App. 1987).)

Arizona's Statute Makes Parents "Strictly Liable"

The parental responsibility statute creates a form of strict liability for parents. Strict liability means that parents can be ordered to compensate a victim even if there's no evidence that the parents knew—or should have known—of a risk that their child might hurt someone or damage property.

When the statute applies, it imposes joint and several liability on children and their parents. "Joint and several liability" means that the parents and the child are equally responsible for the child's behavior. So, a victim can choose to seek compensation from the child, the child's parents, or both.

Arizona's Statute Limits Parents' Financial Liability

The Arizona statute places two important limits on a parent's financial responsibility for harm caused by their child.

First, parental liability is limited to $10,000 "for each tort of the minor." So if the injuries or property damage caused by a child are particularly severe, the victim may not be be able to ask for full compensation from the child's parents. Keep in mind, though, that a child might do several things in a short period that count as separate torts. For example, imagine that a child goes out one night and commits multiple acts of vandalism to several people's property. In a case like that, the $10,000 cap would apply to each act of vandalism, not to all of them put together.

The second limitation has to do with the damages a victim can recover. The Arizona statute only allows a victim to recover their "actual damages." Under Arizona law, actual damages means both direct financial harm (for example, the cost of medical care or repairs to property) and non-economic damages (for example, the pain and suffering caused by an injury). But it does not include punitive damages, which courts can usually award to a plaintiff when a defendant's behavior was particularly outrageous or irresponsible.

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-661(B) (2024); Matter of Guardianship/Conservatorship of Denton, 190 Ariz. 152, 153, 945 P.2d 1283, 1284 (1997).)

Insurers Can Refuse to Cover a Child's "Willful and Malicious" Behavior

Parents' insurance policies often cover damage caused by their children. For example, parents can add their children to their auto insurance policies, which means that liability coverage for an accident works the same way regardless of whether the child or a parent was driving.

But Arizona's statute specifies that insurers can exclude coverage for a child's willful and malicious acts, even when the law requires the parents to pay for the damage.

For example, take a situation where a child has been added to their parents' auto insurance policy. If the child carelessly backs into another car, the parents' insurance would apply to that accident.

But imagine that the child gets angry and intentionally hits another vehicle. The victim successfully argues in court that the parents are responsible for the damage. In that case, the insurance company would be allowed to refuse coverage, even though both the parents and the child are insured under the policy.

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-661(B) (2024).)

When Arizona Parents Can Be Held Liable for Negligence

As we mentioned in the previous section, the parental responsibility statute isn't the only Arizona law that can make parents financially responsible for harm caused by their children. Under Arizona's common law, a parent can be liable for negligence if their carelessness allows their child to harm another person.

However, Arizona law sets a high bar for proving that harm caused by a child was the result of negligent parenting Still, a negligence lawsuit can be a victim's best option in certain situations.

Proving Parental Negligence in Arizona

As we discussed above, the parental responsibility statute imposes strict liability--meaning that a victim can be entitled to compensation without having to prove anything about the parents' behavior.

Arizona common law makes it significantly more difficult to prove parental negligence. A victim must be able to point to a specific failure by the parent that led directly to the harm caused by the child.

Failing to control a child. The clearest example of parental negligence is when:

• the parent knows (or should know) that they are in a position to control their child, and
• they don't exercise that control when they know (or should know) that it's necessary to prevent harm.

When courts talk about this kind of control, they mean that the parent is physically present and should have stepped in to stop their child from behaving in a risky or dangerous way.

Allowing a child access to "dangerous instruments." Some items (for example, explosives) are inherently dangerous. But Arizona law also requires a parent to know their child's habits, and to be aware of the risk that the child might use a particular item in a dangerous way.

For example, ordinarily a parent would not be negligent for letting their child ride a bicycle. But imagine that the parent knows that their child has a history of riding the bike at high speed on busy sidewalks. In that situation, the parent might be liable if they allow their child to keep riding and the child knocks somebody over with their bike.

Failing to address a child's "violent and vicious" behavior. Parents who know that a child has been violent in the past, and fail to protect people, could be liable if the child goes on to injure someone. Protecting people could mean, for example, disciplining the child, seeking to address the underlying causes of the behavior, or keeping the child away from people and situations that have provoked violent behavior.

However, Arizona courts have not created specific rules about what kind of behavior puts parents on notice that their child might hurt someone. A judge or jury must look at the facts of each case and reach a decision about whether the parents failed to act appropriately to deal with the child's behavior.

Other situations where parents might be found negligent. In addition to the specific situations discussed above, parents have the same general obligations as anyone else to avoid negligent behavior. This means that they might be negligent if they put their child in a situation where they know (or should know) that there's a likelihood the child will cause harm.

(Seifert v. Owen, 10 Ariz. App. 483 (1969); Parsons v. Smithey, 109 Ariz. 49 (1973).)

When It Makes Sense to Pursue a Negligence Lawsuit

Despite the challenges of proving parental negligence, there are situations where it could be a victim's best option.

For example, unlike the parental responsibility statute, Arizona's negligence rules can apply even if a child's actions were not willful and malicious. A parent can be found negligent if their child causes harm either intentionally, or through unreasonably risky behavior.

In addition, a negligence lawsuit may make sense for someone who has been seriously injured or suffered significant financial losses. As we discussed above, the parental responsibility statute caps the amount of compensation a victim can receive, and does not allow victims to recover punitive damages from parents. On the other hand, Arizona's constitution prohibits capping damages in negligence lawsuits. And, in the rare case where a parent's behavior is not just negligent, but outrageously irresponsible, a victim might be awarded punitive damages in a negligence lawsuit.

In many cases, there will be a clear reason for a victim to choose one option for seeking compensation over others. However, nothing prevents a plaintiff from filing a lawsuit arguing that the defendants are liable for multiple reasons. The parental responsibility statute, for example, explicitly allows a victim to pursue compensation under the statute and other theories of liability. So, if there's a good argument that parents were negligent, and that they are liable under the parental responsibility statute, then a victim could make both arguments in court.

However, plaintiffs can only be awarded damages under one theory of liability, even if they prove multiple theories in court. So, imagine that a court finds that a plaintiff is entitled to $10,000 under the parental responsibility statute, and $15,000 because of parental negligence. In that case the plaintiff would get $15,000--not $25,000.

(Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 31 (2024); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 12-661(B) (2024).)

When Arizona Parents are Responsible for Their Children's Car Accidents

As we discussed in the previous section, under Arizona law it can be challenging to prove that a parent is liable for an accident caused by their child. An exception to this general rule is when the child causes a car accident while driving a family vehicle.

Under the so-called "family purpose doctrine," a family's primary breadwinner (or the family member who pays for and controls access to a vehicle) can be held legally responsible if a family member drives the vehicle and causes an accident. The doctrine ensures that victims will be entitled to seek compensation from the person who actually owns the vehicle and decides who gets to use it.

The family purpose doctrine will generally make a parent liable for an accident caused by their child when:

• the child is a minor who is financially dependent on their parents
• the child is driving a vehicle for which the parent has primary financial responsibility, and
• the child was driving the car for "a family purpose."

Arizona courts have a broad definition of "family purpose." For example, the family purpose doctrine applies when:

• A child is driving a family vehicle for their own convenience (for example, because they want to visit a friend who lives a few miles away).
• A child is driving a family vehicle for the convenience of their parents (for example, because the parents don't want to have to drive their child to a friend's home).
• A child has permission to use the vehicle, but uses it for a purpose prohibited by their parents (for example, the child says they're driving to a friend's house, but instead drives somewhere else to go to a party).

(Young v. Beck, 224 Ariz. 408 (Ct. App. 2010) (Ct. App. 2010).)

Arizona Parents' Financial Responsibility for a Child's Criminal Acts

In addition to civil liability, parents can sometimes be ordered to pay restitution if their child has been convicted of a crime. Restitution is similar to damages in a civil case—it allows a victim to be compensated for the costs they've suffered because of someone else's wrongful acts. But restitution can only be imposed as part of the sentence in a criminal case.

How Restitution Works in Arizona

Arizona courts can order a person convicted of a crime to reimburse the victim (or victims) for:

• lost wages
• damaged or destroyed property, and
• medical treatment for physical injuries.

Unlike damages in a civil case, restitution cannot be ordered as compensation for a victim's pain and suffering. A court can decide to order full restitution, or restitution for only a portion of the victim's losses.

Arizona's Rules for Parental Restitution

If court is ordering a child to pay restitution, it can also order one or both of the child's custodial parents to pay. Courts decide how much restitution to order without considering a parent's ability to pay. If the parent cannot pay the entire amount immediately, they can be ordered to pay in installments, with interest accruing until the full amount is paid.

But parents cannot be ordered to pay more than $10,000 in restitution—the same limit imposed by the parental responsibility statute.

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-344 (2024).)

Learn More About Arizona's Parental Responsibility Laws

Whether you've been hurt by a minor's behavior, or someone has accused your child of wrongdoing, it's important to understand your rights and obligations under Arizona law. A parent's liability, and a victim's options for seeking compensation, depend on how several different state laws apply to the facts of the case. It can be difficult to sort all of that out on your own. So it may be helpful to seek out an attorney who knows Arizona law and has experience handling these kinds of cases. They should be able to explain your options and help you decide how to proceed.