Are Nebraska Parents Responsible When Their Child Causes an Injury?

In most personal injury cases, the plaintiff seeks compensation directly from the person who harmed them. But when a minor causes injuries or property damage, the victim may want to hold the parents financially responsible. Nebraska law sometimes makes parents liable for their children's harmful acts, but the state places important restrictions on the scope of this parental responsibility. If you've been harmed by a minor, or your child has been accused of wrongdoing, it's important to understand how state law applies to your situation.

Nebraska's Parental Responsibility Statute

Like most states, Nebraska has a parental responsibility statute that makes parents financially liable for their children's behavior in certain situations. Nebraska's statute applies both to injuries and to property damage caused by a minor.

Note that, unlike nearly all other states, Nebraska defines a "minor" as a person under the age of 19. So the parental responsibility statute could apply to the parents of an 18-year-old.

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 who is entitled to compensation under the statute can get the entire amount from the parents.

Nebraska's statute includes several significant limitations based on the seriousness of the child's behavior and the kind of harm suffered by the victim.

(Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-801 (2024); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-2101 (2024).)

The Child Must Have Caused the Harm on Purpose

Nebraska's law applies only to a child's "willful and intentional" acts. So, parents can't be held responsible under the statute if their child's carelessness leads to injuries or property damage. (We'll talk more below about when parents can be held liable for accidents.)

The Nebraska Supreme Court has ruled that the statute does not apply to the behavior of very young children (for example, a child under the age of five). The court reasoned that children that young don't have the kind of judgment or attention necessary to commit wrongdoing on purpose. In general, though, whether a child's actions were intentional is a question that is decided on a case-by-case basis, based on the evidence of what happened.

(Connors v. Pantano, 165 Neb. 515, 86 N.W.2d 367 (1957).)

The Statute Limits Compensation for Injuries, but Not for Property Damage

Nebraska's parental responsibility statute imposes strict limits on compensation for injuries, but no limits on compensation for property damage.

When a minor damages or destroys property, the victim can recover the full amount of their losses from the parents. This liability can be imposed even when it places a huge financial burden on the parents. For example, when two children set a fire that caused nearly $180,000 in damage to a business, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that the business was entitled to collect the full amount from the children's parents.

On the other hand, the statute limits the amount of money a victim can recover from parents to cover the costs of physical injuries. Victims can only seek reimbursement for hospital and medical expenses, and compensation cannot exceed $1,000.

(Distinctive Printing & Packaging Co. v. Cox, 232 Neb. 846 (1989).)

When Nebraska Parents Can Be Held Liable for Negligence

Nebraska's common law negligence rules allow victims to recover damages if they are harmed by someone else's careless behavior. This means that parents can sometimes be held liable for negligence based on the acts of their children.

Why a Victim Might Prefer to File a Negligence Lawsuit

A negligence lawsuit can have advantages for victims compared to a case brought under the parental responsibility statute. These advantages include:

• A victim can sue for negligence even if the child's acts weren't intentional. As we discussed above, the parental responsibility act does not apply unless the child intended to cause harm. On the other hand, the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit can recover damages based on a child's carelessness.
• Nebraska does not limit compensation for physical injuries in negligence lawsuits. The parental responsibility law imposes a $1,000 limit on compensation for physical injuries, and limits compensation to medical and hospital expenses. In a negligence lawsuit a plaintiff may be entitled to compensation for all of the losses they suffered because of the defendant's carelessness, including non-medical damages like pain and suffering and lost wages. In addition, Nebraska does not place a cap on the damages a plaintiff can recover in a negligence lawsuit (except in medical malpractice cases).

Nebraska Sets a High Bar for Proving Parental Negligence

To win a parental negligence lawsuit, a plaintiff must be able to show that a parent's behavior was so careless that it failed to meet the minimum standard for responsible parenting. Under Nebraska law, this can be difficult to prove. The law doesn't require parents to maintain control over their children at all times, and it does not attribute any bad behavior by the child to the parents. There are two situations where parents can be held liable for damage inflicted by their children.

First, when a child is behaving dangerously in front of a parent, the parent has a responsibility to address that behavior. If they encourage the child's dangerous behavior, or don't take reasonable steps to stop it, then they might be found negligent for damage caused by the behavior.

Second, parents who know about a child's dangerous habit could be held liable if they fail to protect people from that habit. But there are significant limits on this kind of liability. Most importantly, it's not enough to show that the parents knew, in general, that their child had bad habits or had done dangerous things in the past. The parents must have knowledge of a specific habit or pattern of behavior that then leads to an injury.

For example, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered a case where a child brought his own fireworks to a fireworks display, threw them in the direction of a group of teenagers, and injured one of them. The parents were aware of past behavior by their son that included shoving his mother to the ground, getting into a fender-bender in the school parking lot, and displaying a pocket knife during a shouting match with other children. But the court decided that this behavior did not put the parents on notice that their son might endanger other people if he attended a fireworks display without supervision.

(Sinsel v. Olsen, 279 Neb. 38 (2009); A.W. v. Lancaster Cnty. Sch. Dist. 0001, 280 Neb. 205 (2010).)

Special Rules Could Apply If a Child Causes a Car Accident

In addition to its general negligence and parental responsibility laws, Nebraska has two that apply specifically to car accidents and that may make a parent liable for an accident caused by their child.

Parents Can Be Liable for Negligent Entrustment of a Motor Vehicle

This theory doesn't just apply to parents and their children. To prove that a vehicle owner is liable for negligent entrustment, a plaintiff must prove that:

• the owner entrusted the vehicle to another person
• the owner knew (or should have known) that the other person was an incompetent or dangerous driver, and
• the other person's negligent driving led the the plaintiff's injuries.

Note that this theory of liability requires a victim to show both that the driver's negligence caused the accident, and that the vehicle owner was negligent in allowing the other person to use the vehicle.

It's also important to keep in mind that a vehicle can be "entrusted" to someone even if they don't receive explicit permission every time they drive it. For example, if a child habitually drives a parent's car, and the parent either ignores or condones this use of their vehicle, then the parent has likely entrusted the vehicle to their child.

(Gibb v. Strickland, 245 Neb. 325 (1994); Wagner v. Mines, 203 Neb. 143 (1979).)

The Family Purpose Doctrine Sometimes Makes a Parent Liable for Their Child's Negligent Driving

This rule makes the "head of the family" liable, in certain situations, for how any family member uses the family's vehicles. The doctrine addresses situations where it might be unfair to only allow an accident victim to recover damages from the person who was driving the car.

For example, a child may technically have very little money or property, even if they are being provided for by parents with significant financial resources. But, if that child causes an accident while driving a vehicle owned by one of their parents, then the parent may be liable for the victim's damages. This liability can apply even if:

• the accident was caused by the child's negligence, rather than by an intentional or criminal act, and
• the parent's own actions (for example, allowing their child to drive the car without supervision) were not negligent or questionable.

The term "head of the family" isn't used nearly as often as it was in the early 20th century, when Nebraska first began using the family purpose doctrine. Back then, courts that considered the doctrine assumed that the head of a family would be a husband or father. Even some more recent cases use this is the default assumption. But the identity of the "head of the family" is a factual question that courts answer by looking at things like who provides for the family and makes decisions about use of its vehicles.

If the head of the family has provided vehicles for the family's use, they can be liable if a family member:

• causes an accident while driving one of those vehicles
• was driving the vehicle with the head of the family's express or implied permission, and
• was driving the vehicle for a purpose permitted by the head of the family.

It can sometimes be difficult to decide how these requirements apply to a particular case. For example, if parents have rules about when a child can use a family car, but are lax in enforcing those rules, it raises the question of whether the child had "implied permission" to use the vehicle.

Similarly, it's not always easy to decide whether a child's use of a vehicle was consistent with the "purpose" intended by the parents. A child may be using a car "for a purpose" allowed by the parents (for example, socializing with friends) even if they're engaging in specific behavior that the parents don't condone (for example, racing other cars on public streets).

(Garska v. Harris, 172 Neb. 339, 109 N.W.2d 529 (1961); Dunn v. Hemberger, 230 Neb. 171 (1988).)

A Victim May Be Able to Seek Compensation Directly from a Minor

When someone is harmed by a minor, there are usually practical reasons to focus on parental liability, rather than the liability of the child. But a victim may also be entitled to pursue compensation from the minor directly.

• Bringing a negligence lawsuit against a minor. This avoids the need to prove anything about the parent's legal responsibility. On the other hand, a minor may not have the resources to fully repay the cost of significant injuries or property damage. And keep in mind that Nebraska courts judge a child's behavior by comparing it to what a "reasonable" child of the same age would have done in that situation. So, the law is more forgiving towards children than it is towards adults who engage in the same behavior, and courts are unlikely to decide that a very young child has been negligent. (Camerlinck v. Thomas, 209 Neb. 843 (1981).)
• Seeking restitution in criminal court. Restitution is similar to damages in civil cases, but is only available as part of the sentencing process after someone has been convicted of (or plead guilty to) a crime. In addition, when ordering restitution Nebraska courts must consider a child's ability to pay. A judge might order a child to get a part-time job to earn the money to pay back a victim. But a court won't order a child to pay back the full amount of the damage they've caused if the child does not have the money and has no reasonable chance of earning it. (Neb. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 43-286 (2024); State v. Jeovani H. (In re Jeovani H.), 316 Neb. 723 (Neb. 2024).)

Learn More About Nebraska's Parental Responsibility Laws

As we've seen, Nebraska has several different laws that address how a victim can be compensated when they're hurt by a minor. And, if a minor and their parents may be liable under more than one rule, a victim can pursue multiple options at the same time. For example, Nebraska's courts have clarified that a plaintiff can bring a lawsuit against a minor's parents under both the parental responsibility statute, and under common law negligence rules. (P. R. Halligan, Post 163, Am. Legion v. Schultz, 212 Neb. 329 (1982).)

This complexity means that, whether you're a victim or a parent, it can be difficult to figure out what state law mean for your situation. So, you may want to consult an attorney who knows Nebraska law and has experience with these legal issues. A good attorney should be able to explain which rules matter for your case and help you decide how to proceed.