Are Texas Parents Responsible When Their Child Causes an Injury?

If someone has been harmed by another person's careless or malicious behavior, they may be entitled to financial compensation. In most cases, this compensation comes directly from the person who caused the harm. But Texas, like most states, sometimes makes parents legally responsible for harm caused by their minor children. Texas has several legal rules that could apply when a victim seeks compensation from a child's parents. Understanding these rules is important both for parents and for anyone who's been hurt by a child's misconduct.

Texas' Parental Responsibility Statute

Like most states, Texas has a parental responsibility statute that makes parents financially liable for their children's behavior in certain situations. (The statute also applies to legal guardians, since they have taken on parental responsibilities.)

Not that Texas' statute only applies to property damage, not to physical injuries. We'll talk more below about a victim's options if they've been physically harmed.

The statute covers property damage in two situations:

• when both a child and their parent were negligent, and
• when a child between ages 10-17 has acted "willfully and maliciously."

(Tex. Fam. Code § 41.001 (2024).)

Liability for Negligence Under the Parental Responsibility Statute

A defendant can be liable for negligence when they have a duty to protect people from danger, and fail to take reasonable steps to do so. For example, drivers have an obligation to avoid endangering other drivers or pedestrians, and can be found negligent if they carelessly cause an accident.

Parental negligence is a little more complicated, because it requires a victim to prove both that:

• their property was damaged by a child's careless behavior, and
• the child's behavior was the result of careless parenting.

Proving that a child was negligent. Texas courts don't expect children to behave as responsibly as the average adult.

The state's supreme court has said that children under the age of five are incapable of negligence. The court pointed out that negligence requires someone to behave in an unreasonably risky way, and that it doesn't make sense to judge very young children by this standard. Very young children, the court noted, aren't capable of understanding how the things they do might create risks for other people.

Older children can be found negligent, but courts apply a more lenient standard than the one that applies to adults. A child between ages five and 17 is judged by what would be reasonable for a child of that age.

(Thompson v. Wooten, 650 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. App. 1983).)

Proving that a parent was negligent. We'll talk more below about how Texas courts decide if a parent has been negligent. In general, though, a parent can behave negligently in three ways:

• The parent fails to intervene when they know their child is behaving in a dangerous way, and are in a position to stop it. For example, the parent sees their eight-year-old child playing with matches, but doesn't take them away.
• The parent allows their child to use or have access to an item that is either inherently dangerous, or dangerous in the hands of that child. For example, the parent continues to leave matches around the home, despite knowing that the child likes to take them and play with them.
• The parent fails to restrain a child that they know has dangerous tendencies. For example, a parent is aware that their child likes to play with matches, but does not take steps to change the child's behavior, or to keep the child out of situations where they might have unsupervised access to matches.

In the examples above, the parent could be found negligent if their child goes on to set a fire that damages someone's property.

(Prather v. Brandt, 981 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. App. 1998); Moody v. Clark, 266 S.W.2d 909 (Tex. Civ. App. 1954).)

Strict Liability Under the Parental Responsibility Statute

The second part of Texas' statute makes a parent liable if their child:

• is between ages 10 and 17, and
• damages property through "willful and malicious" conduct.

Texas courts classify a child's behavior as "willful and malicious" if the child intended to harm someone. This means a child's negligent behavior isn't enough to trigger liability under the second part of the statute.

Strict Liability for Parents. This section of the statute imposes strict liability on parents whose children have behaved willfully and maliciously. In other words, 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 a child's behavior is willful and malicious. Importantly, a child's behavior can be intentional but still not be willful and malicious. For example, it generally wouldn't be "willful and malicious" behavior for a child to intentionally start a small fire that then gets out of control. But it would be willful and malicious for a child to start a small fire because they want it to spread and damage someone's property.

Limits on Parents' Financial Liability

When a parent is found negligent under Texas' statute, they can be ordered to compensate a victim for the full amount of their damages.

On the other hand, when a parent is found strictly liable for their child's willful and malicious conduct, the statute places two limits on the parent's financial responsibility. These limits are:

• a $25,000 cap on the total amount of damages a parent can be ordered to pay, and
• the exclusion of punitive damages.

Punitive damages aren't common, but they can usually be awarded when a defendant's behavior was particularly outrageous or irresponsible.

(Tex. Fam. Code § 41.002 (2024).)

Parental Negligence Under Texas' Common Law

In addition to Texas' parental responsibility statute, the state's common law sometimes makes parents financially liable for their children's behavior. Statutes are passed by state legislatures, and courts use them to decide cases when they can. "Common law" refers to the rules courts use when there's no statute to decide the outcome.

In Texas, common law negligence rules may apply to a parent's conduct even when they aren't liable under the parental responsibility statute.

When Parents are Liable for Common Law Negligence

Texas' rules for common law negligence are similar to the ones that apply under the parental responsibility statute. The ultimate legal question is whether harm caused by a child was the result of a parent's irresponsibility. As we discussed above, a parent in Texas can be liable for negligence (both under the statute and the common law) if they:

• are with their child and do not stop the child from doing something that's likely to cause harm
• give their child a "dangerous instrumentality" (including items that might be safe in general, but that the parent knows their child might misuse), or
• do not take reasonable steps to restrain a child when they know that child has dangerous tendencies.

There are three key differences when a victim sues a parent for common law negligence.

Compensation for physical injuries. Common law negligence rules allow a victim to recover damages for physical harm they've suffered (for example, compensation for medical bills or lost wages). The parental responsibility statute only covers property damage.

The focus is on parental carelessness. Under the parental responsibility statute, a victim must prove that both the parent and the child were negligent. In a common law negligence case, the victim does not have to prove that the child was negligent.

This difference could have important consequences. For example, imagine that a parent sees that their very young child is playing with fireworks, but doesn't do anything to stop it. The child accidentally starts a fire that damages someone's property. If a court finds that the child was too young to be held liable for negligence, then:

• the parent could not be held liable under the parental responsibility statute, but
• the parent could still be sued for common law negligence (because they carelessly allowed their child's dangerous behavior).

(Prather v. Brandt, 981 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. App. 1998); (Tex. Fam. Code § 41.001 (2024).)

When Parents Should Know Their Child Might Harm Someone

The most obvious examples of parental negligence involve parents who see their children behaving in dangerous ways, and don't do anything to stop it. But a parent can sometimes be found negligent even if they weren't present when their child caused the harm. In these cases, the question is whether the parent—based on what they knew about their child—should have anticipated their child's harmful behavior.

For example, imagine that parents know that their child frequently gets into fights when he goes out with friends on Friday and Saturday nights. Instead of attempting to address this behavior, the parents ignore it and continue to allow their child to hang out with the same friends. If the child hurts someone in a fight, the parents could be liable for negligence based on:

• their knowledge of the child's dangerous tendencies, and
• their failure to address those dangerous tendencies.

(Isbell v. Ryan, 983 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. App. 1998).)

Parents' Liability For Their Children's Car Accidents

Texas has two rules that can be important when deciding if a parent is legally responsible for a car accident caused by their child. This kind of liability could apply if:

• the child causes the accident while doing something for the parent (for example, running an errand), or
• there's a parent in the vehicle who can direct and control the child's driving.

Liability for Car Accidents When a Child Was Helping a Parent

In certain situations, a business can be held liable for the actions of an employee who was acting on the business' behalf. For example, if an employee driving a delivery vehicle causes a car accident, a court may rule that the employee was acting as an "agent" of their employer (who, in legal terms, is called the "principal").

This rule is called "respondeat superior," and in Texas it can apply to parents and their children in the same way it applies to businesses and their employees. For example, imagine that a parent asks a child to drive somewhere to run an errand, and the child causes an accident on the way. A Texas court would probably rule that the child was acting as the parent's "agent," and the parent could be held liable for the accident.

On the other hand, this kind of liability doesn't apply if a child was using a family vehicle purely for their own benefit. For example, if a child causes an accident while driving to hang out with a friend, then the parents would not be legally responsible under this rule.

(Anda v. Blake, 562 S.W.2d 497, 499 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978).)

Parental Liability for "Joint Enterprises"

The joint enterprise applies to any situation where a passenger's relationship to the driver, and the benefit they're getting from the trip, makes that passenger liable for the driver's behavior. A person can only be liable under the joint enterprise rule when three requirements are met.

The person must be a passenger. No matter what kind of relationship someone has to the driver of a vehicle, they cannot be liable under the joint enterprise rule unless they were in the vehicle at the time of the accident.

The passenger must be entitled to "direct and control" the driver. Keep in mind that liability is based on whether the passenger has the right to direct and control the driver. There doesn't have to be an explicit agreement, and the passenger does not have to actually be telling the driver what to do. If a parent is a passenger, and their minor child is behind the wheel, courts generally assume (unless there's evidence to the contrary) that the parent has the final say on where and how the vehicle is driven. That kind of control is enough to satisfy this requirement.

The driver and the passenger must have a "joint interest" in the trip. In other words, both the driver and the passenger must be getting some kind of benefit out of the trip. For example, a parent and child would have a joint interest in running family errands or going to a movie together. Note that the parent and child don't have to have to have the same interest in the trip. There just has to be a personal benefit for both of them. For example:

• There would be a joint interest in a trip to the mall if the parent went shopping while the child saw a movie with friends.
• There might not be a joint interest in a trip where a child wanted to give a friend a ride home, and the parent was only in the vehicle as a favor to the child and the friend.

(Nelson v. Fulkerson, 155 Tex. 298 (1956); Little v. Littlefield, 311 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1962).)

Suing a Minor Directly

The general rule in Texas is that minors are legally responsible for their own behavior. So, in some situations it could make sense for a victim to sue a minor directly, instead of seeking to make the parents financially responsible. Before a victim chooses this option, they should consider two potential limitations.

First, as we've discussed above, Texas uses more lenient standards to judge a child's behavior than it uses to judge adult behavior. Depending on the child's age, they may even be legally exempt from liability for their careless or malicious acts. On the other hand, parents can sometimes be legally responsible for a child's behavior even when the child can't be sued directly.

Second, successfully suing a child does not allow a plaintiff to force the parents to pay damages on the child's behalf. So, it may not make financial sense to seek compensation from a child who might have few personal assets and very little of their own money.

(Brown v. Dellinger, 355 S.W.2d 742, 747 (Tex. Civ. App. 1962); Thompson v. Wooten, 650 S.W.2d 499 (Tex. App. 1983); Bailey v. C.S., 12 S.W.3d 159, 163 (Tex. App. 2000).)

When Texas Parents Can be Ordered to Pay Restitution

In addition to civil liability, parents can sometimes be ordered to pay restitution if their child has engaged in criminal activity. 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 criminal sentencing.

Keep in mind that, unless a minor is being tried as an adult, their criminal case will be handled in juvenile court. These courts use different terminology—for example, a child's criminal behavior is instead referred to as "delinquent" behavior. But, like an adult criminal conviction, a judgment of delinquency allows the court to order restitution.

Limits on parental restitution. As we discussed above, if a child between ages 10 and 17 willfully and maliciously damages property, then the parents can face liability for actual damages (excluding punitive damages) up to a $25,000 limit. These same limits on the amount and type of damages also apply to the restitution a juvenile court can order parents to pay.

When parental restitution can be imposed. Texas' juvenile courts have the power to order parental restitution when:

• the child has committed a crime (or engaged in other serious misconduct requiring intervention by the juvenile court), and
• the child's offense injured someone or damaged their property.

A juvenile court can order parents to pay restitution:

• as compensation for physical injuries as well as for property damage, and
• without the victim having to file a lawsuit or ask for compensation.

Texas used to allow parents to avoid restitution if they could show that they made good faith efforts to prevent their child from causing harm. But this exception was repealed in 2015.

(Tex. Fam. Code § 54.048; Tex. Fam. Code § 54.041(b); In re D.M., 191 S.W.3d 381, 384 (Tex. App. 2006).)

Learn More About Texas' Parental Responsibility Laws

Whether you've been harmed by a minor, or someone has accused your child of wrongdoing, it's important to know how Texas law applies to you. As we've seen, the state's laws create several forms of parental liability, and may give a victim several options for seeking compensation. If you're not sure how to proceed, consider seeking out an attorney who knows Texas law and has experience with cases like yours.