New York’s Parental Responsibility Law can be found at N.Y. General Obligations Law 3-112.
Under this statute, parents and legal guardians can be held responsible for certain actions of their minor children. New York, like most states, sets the age of majority at 18. However, New York’s Parental Responsibility Law also says a child must be over the age of 10 for parents to be held responsible for their child’s actions.
So, keep in mind that GOL 3-112 only applies if a minor child is:
GOL 3-112 says parents and legal guardians who have custody of a minor child can be held responsible for the actions of that child. If the State, Social Services Department, or a foster parent has custody of a minor, then 3-112 doesn't apply.
Liability under 3-112 applies when a minor willfully, or maliciously causes damage to property. It also imposes liability for vandalism and property theft. 3-112 pretty well covers the whole gamut of property offenses, as long as the minor acted willfully or maliciously. That means there has to be some level of intent behind the action.
So, parents won't be held liable under 3-112 if a child damages property by accident, but the parent might still be financially responsible under other legal principles (more on this later).
Learn more about property damage claims in New York.
New York specifically penalizes the false reporting of a occurrence or impending occurrence of a crime, catastrophe, or emergency under circumstances that could likely cause "public alarm" or "inconvenience." It's also a crime to place a "false bomb" or other device in a public area.
Under 3-112, parents and guardians can be responsible if a minor in their custody breaks these laws, making the parent/guardian financially responsible for resources that were expended in responding to the false report (or to the placement of a "false bomb"). The parent or guardian's financial liability is limited to $5,000.
Virtually anyone, or any entity, who has been damaged by the willful, malicious, or unlawful actions of a minor may seek to recover compensation ("damages" in the language of the law) from the parents or guardians of the minor. In other words, individuals, municipalities, corporations, churches, etc. may all pursue damages under 3-112.
If judgment is entered against a parent or guardian under 3-112, for $500, or more, the parent or guardian may apply for a "hardship forgiveness" of sorts. The parent or guardian must present extensive evidence of their inability to pay. If sufficient evidence is provided, the court may reduce the amount of the judgment against the parent. In no case, however, will the judgment be reduced to less than $500.
Parents and guardians may also be excused from liability if the minor in their custody voluntarily, and without good cause, abandoned the home of the parent or guardian before the damage or destruction occurred.
It's not a defense that the parent or guardian exercised diligent supervision over the minor child. However, courts may consider this as a mitigating factor in determining the extent of liability.
Even if a minor's actions fall outside the scope of the New York statutes we've discussed so far, parents themselves can be held accountable for harm caused by their minor children if the parent's own negligence played a part in causing or contributing to the harm.
For instance, if a parent knows that their 17 year-old son has a history of reckless driving (four tickets and an accident in one year, for example), the parent will likely have a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent the child from causing foreseeable harm to others on the road.
If the parent does nothing, and lets the son drive the family car whenever and wherever he pleases, that could amount to negligence (often under a specific concept called "negligent supervision") on the part of the parent, and they could face liability for any harm resulting from a car accident caused by the son.
Learn more about parents' liability for a teen driver's car accident.
In the above scenario, the parent's own car insurance policy will likely cover the son (unless he's been specifically excluded from the policy), so at least some of the financial responsibility for accident-related injuries and vehicle damage will be absorbed by the insurance coverage. Learn more about what drivers and vehicles are covered by car insurance.
If you're facing (or thinking of pursuing) an injury-related case under New York's laws on parental responsibility, it might make sense to discuss your situation and your options with an experienced legal professional. Get tips on hiring and working with a lawyer.
]]>In some situations, Florida imposes legal responsibility—what the law calls “vicarious liability”—on parents for injuries and damages their kids cause. In addition, Florida parents are liable when their own careless behavior, together with that of their children, causes harm to others.
There are two Florida parental responsibility laws that hold parents vicariously liable for their kids’ wrongdoing. Vicarious liability means that the parent is held legally responsible, not for any actions of their own, but for the actions of their minor (under 18 years old) children. The child's unlawful conduct is imputed to the parent, putting the parent at risk for legal claims and damages.
Florida parents are on the hook for personal injuries and property damages their kids cause while:
In Florida, when a minor applies for a driver’s license, a parent (or guardian) must sign the child’s application. (Fla. Stat. § 322.09(1)(a) (2023).) As a rule, signing the application means that the parent can be held responsible, along with the child, for injuries and damages caused by the child’s driving. (Fla. Stat. § 322.09(2) (2023).)
Parents are at risk for damages caused by a child’s:
Finally, the statute doesn’t put a cap, or limit, on a parent’s financial exposure. Parents are responsible, individually and jointly with their kids, for all the damage their kids cause while driving.
Florida parents are also responsible for damages caused by their child’s acts of vandalism. Fla. Stat. § 741.24(1) (2023) makes the parents of a child who’s living with them liable when the child willfully or maliciously steals or destroys real or personal property belonging to another.
Parental responsibility extends only to the victim’s actual damages—also known as compensatory damages—plus court costs. For example, parents could be held liable for the cost to repair or replace damaged or destroyed property, as well as for the owner’s emotional distress. But they wouldn’t be responsible for punitive damages.
Parental responsibility laws like those discussed above make parents liable for their kids’ misbehavior. Like all other states, Florida also holds parents legally responsible for their own negligent or intentional misbehavior if it causes harm. In the context of the parent-child relationship, parental wrongdoing often means failure to supervise a child with known dangerous tendencies.
Suppose, for example, a child has a history of talking on the phone and texting while driving, paying attention to everything but the road. The parents know of these behaviors, but they still let the child drive unsupervised. If the child causes an accident while distracted by texting, the parents might be found negligent for allowing the child to drive.
If your child has caused injuries to another that might expose you to liability under Florida’s parental responsibility laws, make sure you speak to your insurance agent as quickly as possible to see about reporting a possible claim. Should a claim be made against you, your insurance coverage—if you have it—likely will provide you with a lawyer.
If you don’t have insurance coverage, think about consulting with a lawyer on your own to find out what options you have.
]]>This kind of liability is covered by California Civil Code section 1714.1, which says: “Any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person, or in any injury to the property of another, shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor for all purposes of civil damages.”
To translate, this statute makes California parents and legal guardians financially responsible for injuries and property damage caused by their minor child's "willful misconduct."
The statute goes on to state that the custodial parent or guardian is jointly liable, along with the minor, for any damages resulting from the minor's willful misconduct, for an amount not to exceed $25,000 for each wrongful act (Note: This amount is adjusted every two years based on the cost of living and other factors).
If someone is injured because of the minor’s “willful misconduct," the $25,000 limit can include compensation for medical treatment and other injury-related expenses, but it can't include compensation for non-economic damages like "pain and suffering."
If the minor’s misconduct involves graffiti or “defacement of property of another with paint or a similar substance,” the limit of the parent/guardian’s joint liable is still $25,000, which also includes an award of court and attorney's fees to the person filing the lawsuit over the incident.
Keep in mind that California Civil Code section 1714.1 only imposes parental liability for a minor’s “willful misconduct,” which means that the minor did something on purpose—rather than merely causing an accident through carelessness. “Willful misconduct” requires an intent to act, above and beyond mere negligence on the part of the minor. But parents and guardians can be on the legal hook when a minor's negligence causes harm in the car accident context.
There are two main California statutes that can make a parent or legal guardian liable for damages caused by a minor’s driving.
California Vehicle Code section 17707 says: “Any civil liability of a minor arising out of his driving a motor vehicle…is hereby imposed upon the person who signed and verified the application of the minor for a license, and the person shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages proximately resulting from the negligent or wrongful act or omission of the minor in driving a motor vehicle.”
Since, in California, the parent or legal guardian must sign a driver’s license application for any minor who is under 18, section 17707 essentially spells out civil liability for that parent or guardian if the minor causes a car accident.
California Vehicle Code section 17708 holds a parent potentially liable for all foreseeable damages any time they give express or implied permission for a minor to drive a vehicle (whether or not the minor is actually a licensed driver) and the minor ends up causing a car accident.
It's important to differentiate these driving-related statutes from the "willful misconduct" statute we discussed in the previous section, in terms of the minor's actions and the potential damages that could be available to the person who is suing for injuries.
When it comes to driving, parents can be jointly liable for any car accident caused by the minor. This means mere negligence or carelessness is enough to trigger the parent/guardian's legal responsibility for resulting damages (and the minor's intent does not enter into the picture).
While California Civil Code section 1714.1 (the “willful misconduct” statute we covered earlier) limits a parent/guardian’s liability to $25,000 for actual damages, California’s driving related-statutes make a parent/guardian jointly liable for “any damages proximately resulting” from the accident. That includes compensation for non-economic losses like pain and suffering, which can add up to tens of thousands of dollars when car accident injuries are significant.
Learn more about parents' liability for teen drivers' accidents, and California laws that can affect a car accident case.
Parents and legal guardians in California should keep in mind that they may still be legally responsible for a minor’s actions under traditional civil fault principles, beyond what's covered in the statutes we've discussed here.
In general, a parent who fails to take reasonable steps to properly supervise a child—knowing their child has a particularly dangerous propensity—could be considered negligent if someone suffers foreseeable harm as a result of the child’s actions. Get the basics on parental responsibility laws and personal injury liability.
It's never a bad idea for parents and legal guardians to get familiar with state laws that could make them liable for the actions of their minor children. But if you're actually facing a lawsuit or other legal action involving harm caused by your minor child, you may need more than just information. It might make sense to discuss your situation with an experienced legal professional. Learn more about getting help from a personal injury lawyer.
]]>You’ll find Alabama’s parental responsibility law at Code of Alabama section 6-5-380. This law can be used to hold a parent, legal guardian, or other person liable for certain acts taken by a minor (a “minor” being a person who is under 18 years of age) when:
Key exception: Foster parents aren’t liable for the actions of their foster children in Alabama.
Section 6-5-380 makes the parent or guardian liable for the “injury to, or destruction of” someone else’s property—real or personal property—caused by the intentional, willful, or malicious act or acts of the minor.
So, this law can be used only to hold a parent or guardian liable when a child does something on purpose to cause property damage. Mere carelessness or negligence is not enough to trigger liability. So, a parent or guardian would not be liable under this law for vehicle damage resulting from a car accident caused by a minor. But the statute would apply to acts of vandalism like graffiti, or throwing rocks through windows.
This is where the limits of Alabama’s parental responsibility law are most apparent. Section 6-5-380 makes clear that parents and others are on the financial hook for “actual damages” resulting from harm to property, but only for an amount that cannot exceed $1,000.
So, even if the minor’s conduct ends up causing a significant amount of damage to property, the owner of the property would still only be able to collect $1,000 from the parent or guardian (although the statute also makes the parent or guardian liable for the harmed party’s costs of taking the matter to court, and those costs are not a part of the $1,000 limit).
Section 6-5-380 may not represent the limit of a parent or guardian’s potential liability for a minor child’s conduct in Alabama.
Liability for a child’s actions may still exist under traditional fault theories like negligence. Basically, a parent may be liable for any resulting harm if they know of their child’s dangerous tendencies, yet they fail to take reasonable steps to properly supervise the child, and someone ends up getting injured in a way that was foreseeable. (Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.)
]]>In most states, the child’s parents will likely be on the hook for the damage to your garbage can. Nearly every state has its own parental responsibility laws that impose some form of legal liability on parents for the actions of their children.
Whether you’re a parent or the victim of a child’s harmful behavior, here’s what you need to know about parental responsibility laws:
Historically, parents were not responsible for harm caused by their children solely based on the parent-child relationship. Under common law rules, parents are typically liable for the actions of their children only when:
Over time, lawmakers began passing parental responsibility laws to make it easier for people harmed by children to get compensation. After all, children rarely have enough money to pay for injuries and property damage they cause, which often leaves victims out in the cold. Under parental responsibility laws, parents become “vicariously liable” for the acts of their children and must foot the bill.
Lawmakers also use parental responsibility laws to motivate parents to properly supervise their children. The idea is that if parents have to bear the cost when their children misbehave they will be more likely to pay attention and intervene when necessary.
Hawaii passed the first parental responsibility law back in 1846. Now, nearly all states have laws imposing parental responsibility for their children’s civil wrongs and criminal actions.
People harmed by children can typically sue parents based on parental responsibility laws or common law rules.
State laws vary as to when parents become legally responsible for the actions of their children and when that responsibility ends. Most states have parental responsibility laws that kick in when a child is born and end when a child turns 18 years old. A few states limit liability to children above a certain age (for example, 10 or 11) or extend responsibility up to the age of 21 years old.
Some states specify that their parental responsibility laws don’t apply to emancipated minors or minors who are married.
As noted, parental responsibility laws vary quite a bit from state to state. If you’re dealing with a legal issue related to parental liability you should talk to a lawyer in your area. Here is a small sampling of what these types of laws look like in different states.
California: Parents are liable for any “willful misconduct causing injury, death or property damage” by a minor under the age of 18. Parents may also be liable for a child’s negligent driving, for the cost of cleaning up a child’s graffiti, and for injuries and property damages caused by the discharge of a firearm when the parent allowed the child to have the firearm or left the fire accessible to the minor. Liability is limited. Limitations vary from $25,000 to $60,000 based on the type of harm caused.
(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1714.1, 1714.3 (2023); Cal. Veh. Code §§ 17707-17708 (2023); Cal. Gov’t Code § 38772 (2023).)
Illinois: Parents are liable for “willful or malicious” acts by minors under the age of 18 causing property damage or personal injury. Parents are also liable for a child’s damage to any religious structure such as a church, synagogue, mosque, or cemetery. A parent's liability is capped at $20,000 plus attorneys’ fees.
(740 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 115/1-7 (2022); 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/21-1.2 (2022).)
Maine: Parents are liable when a minor between the ages of 7 and 17 years old “willfully or maliciously” causes property damage or injury to a person. A parent’s financial exposure is limited to $800, regardless of the amount of actual loss. Parents may also be liable for the negligent driving of a minor if they knowingly allow a minor to drive a car they own.
(Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14 § 304 (2023); Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 29-A § 1651 (2023).)
New York: Parents are liable when a child between the ages of 10 and 18 years old “willfully, maliciously, or unlawfully” damages or burglarizes property. New York also specifically holds parents accountable when a minor between the ages of 10 and 18 makes a false bomb threat. Liability is limited to $5,000.
(N.Y. Gen. Oblig. § 3-112 (2023).)
For more information, check out Nolo’s state coverage of parental responsibility laws.
It’s no secret that young drivers are at a higher risk of getting in car accidents. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), teen drivers have a fatal crash rate almost three times as high as drivers ages 20 and older per mile driven.
Who pays when a teenager gets in an accident? In many states, parents do. States hold parents responsible under different legal theories, including:
The family purpose rule. Many states hold parents liable for the actions of their teen drivers under a legal theory called vicarious liability. Similar laws make employers liable for an employee's car accident.
Negligent entrustment. Parents may also be legally and financially responsible for their teen driver when they knew or should have known their child was a danger on the road and let the teen drive anyway.
Driving privilege liability. A few states, including California and Florida, require parents to agree to accept responsibility for a minor teen’s driving when the teen applies for a license.
Learn more: Am I Liable If My Teen Driver Causes a Car Accident?
Parental liability laws are complex. Whether you’re a parent or someone who is trying to hold a parent liable, a lawyer can answer your questions. You’ll need to know how the parental liability laws in your state apply to your situation and then you can decide what to do.
Learn more about getting help from a personal injury lawyer. When you’re ready, you can connect with a lawyer directly from this page for free.
]]>This article will outline some of the key specifics of Arizona’s parental responsibility laws.
Arizona’s parental responsibility law can be found at Arizona Revised Statutes section 12-661; Liabilities of parents or legal guardians for malicious or wilful misconduct of minors.
Parental responsibility laws only hold parents and guardians responsible for certain actions taken by minor children. A minor, by definition, is any person under the age of majority. This age is defined differently from state to state. Arizona, like most states, sets the age of majority at 18. So, the Arizona statutes discussed below only apply when a child is under the age of 18.
Parents or guardians whose minor children cause property damage, or bodily injury, through malicious or wilful misconduct, will be held responsible under Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 12-661.
Shoplifting and theft are included within the definition of “property damage.”
Liability under Arizona’s parental responsibility statute takes the form of "strict liability." That means it does not matter whether the parents or guardians had any reason to anticipate the minor’s misconduct. If a minor maliciously or wilfully hurts someone or damages someone's property in Arizona, the parents or guardians will be responsible under section 12-661.
Under section 12-661, parents and guardians are jointly and severally liable for all damages the minor causes. This means the parents/guardians and minor are collectively and individually responsible, i.e. the injured party can collect from any or all of them via a civil lawsuit.
In general, the minor’s parent/guardian is responsible for the actual damages caused. However, liability is limited to $10,000 for each wrongful act of the minor. It is important to bear in mind, that if another statute imposes liability for the minor’s actions, Arizona’s parental responsibility statute imposes liability in addition to the liability imposed by the other statute.
"Actual damages" means all quantifiable losses stemming from the minor's actions, including payment of medical bills and lost income for personal injuries, and payment to replace or repair damaged property. But "actual damages" excludes non-economic losses like pain and suffering, which can really add up in a lawsuit over serious injuries. Bottom line: Parents can't be sued for non-economic damages under section 12-661.
Arizona Revised Statutes, Section 12-661 does not limit an insurer’s right to exclude coverage for a minor’s actions. For example, a minor could cause damage that would be within the scope of coverage under a home or auto policy if caused negligently. However, coverage may be excluded, under the policy, if the same damages are caused wilfully or maliciously. Arizona’s Parental Responsibility Statute does take away the insurer’s right to deny coverage.
Parents and guardians can be responsible for their minor's actions even in cases where Arizona's parental responsibility laws do not apply. Parents have a duty, at common law, to prevent their children from causing harm in certain situations. For example, when a parent knows that their child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly, the parent may be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
Suppose a parent knows that their child buys fireworks and lights them without taking precaution for the safety of others. So the parent is on notice of this kind of behavior, but fails to do anything to stop it. If the child then causes an accident by recklessly lighting off fireworks, the parent could be considered negligent for failing to take reasonable steps to control the child's behavior. Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.
]]>In this article, we'll examine Kentucky's parental responsibility laws, focusing on two main statutes:
Under Kentucky Rev. Stat. section 405.025, if a minor purposely marks, defaces, or otherwise damages property -- and has a judgment entered against them -- that minor’s custodial parent(s) or guardian(s) will be liable for the judgment. In order to collect against the minor’s parent or guardian, the property owner must name the parent or guardian as a defendant in a lawsuit against the minor.
Liability is limited, however, to $2,500 per judgment. If a minor is a repeat offender under this statute, the parent or guardian can only be liable for a cumulative amount of $10,000. Note: Although owners of wrongfully damaged property can pursue damages against a minor’s parents, this does not preclude them from pursuing damages directly from the minor. For example, if the parent's liability is maxed out under the statute's cap, but a balance remains, the injured party can pursue a claim against the minor directly.
In Kentucky, a parent or guardian must sign a minor’s application for a driver’s license or permit. Under Kentucky Rev. Stat. section 186.590, the person who signs the application will be jointly liable -- along with the minor -- for any damages the minor causes while driving negligently, everything from a fender bender to a major vehicle accident. The parent/guardian can be relieved of liability, however, if the minor, or someone acting on the minor's behalf, deposits proof of financial responsibility, e.g. insurance or a bond.
Keep in mind that under this statute, any vehicle owner (not just a parent) who allows a minor to drive their vehicle could face liability if the minor causes property damage or bodily injury through negligent driving.
Even in situations where the Kentucky statutes we've discussed here do not apply, parents may still be held financially accountable for their children’s actions. A set of traditional, non-statutory legal principles known as the "common law" may impose liability.
Specifically, a common law treatise called "The Restatement (Second) of Torts" provides: "A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to control his minor child as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from so conducting itself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) knows of or should know of the necessity and opportunity of exercising such control."
In other words, when parents know their child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly, the parents may be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
For example, imagine a parent knows his or her child is an inattentive driver who talks or texts on the cell phone incessantly while driving. In fact, the child has received three traffic citations for "distracted driving" in less than one year. Imagine further that, in spite of this knowledge, the parent allows the child to drive a vehicle, without making any attempt to limit the child's phone use. It's not an easy case to prove, but if the child ends up causing a car accident while talking or texting on the phone, the parent could be considered negligent and at least partially at fault for the resulting injuries and other damages. Learn more about Negligence, the Duty of Care, and Fault for an Accident.
]]>The law gives potential liability to parents and “legal guardians” of minors in Illinois. For purposes of the statute, a legal guardian means “a person appointed guardian, or given custody, of a minor by a circuit court of the State.” It does not apply to an adult who has merely been appointed “guardian” of a minor by a juvenile court in Illinois.
The law makes clear that a “minor” is a “person who is above the age of 11 years, but not yet 19 years of age,” as long as he or she is unemancipated. The child must also live with the parent or legal guardian in order for the Illinois Parental Responsibility Law to apply.
So, parents and legal guardians can still be on the legal hook for a child’s actions even after the child is 18 (until the child’s 19th birthday, to be exact), and there is a legal gray area for children under 11 years of age -- the state’s Parental Responsibility Law does not specifically apply in that situation, but the parent or guardian may still be legally responsible for the child’s actions under traditional fault and liability principles (more on that later).
Parents and legal guardians are not legally liable for damages in every instance where their child causes injury or damage to another person or entity. In fact, the Illinois Parental Responsibility Law does not mandate parental liability for most true “accidents” in which the minor was at fault but was merely negligent.
Instead, the law only creates parental and guardian liability for “the wilful or malicious acts” of a minor when that conduct causes injury to another person or to property (real or personal).
So, the minor’s conduct must have been purposeful, to some extent. That means liability will not usually extend to parents when a minor causes a car accident or some other harm due to carelessness, assuming the minor did not intend to cause injury or damage. Learn more about Negligence and Fault for an Accident.
It’s important to note that, under the Illinois Parental Responsibility Law, parents or legal guardians are only liable for “actual damages” caused by the minor’s conduct -- that means compensation will be limited to expenses like medical bills resulting from injuries caused by an assault, payment for property damage caused by vandalism, and other losses that can be easily quantified.
It also means that the parent or legal guardian is not liable for non-economic damages like “pain and suffering,” which can really add up in a typical personal injury claim. (Learn more about Damages in an Injury Case.)
The statute also makes clear that, when a plaintiff is successful in a lawsuit against a parent or legal guardian under the Illinois Parental Responsibility Law, the plaintiff may be awarded “reasonable attorneys’ fees,” meaning that the parent or legal guardian could be ordered to reimburse the plaintiff for any money paid for legal services in connection with the lawsuit.
740 ILCS 115/5 places a "cap" on parental liability, saying that it cannot exceed $20,000 in actual damages for each person or legal entity for the first occurrence where the minor's wilful or malicious act causes injury, and $30,000 for any "pattern or practice" of wilful or malicious acts, in addition to taxable court costs and attorney's fees.
The Illinois Parental Responsibility Law also states that it is not intended to limit the potential liability of parents for their child’s actions -- or limit the recovery of damages by an injured party -- "in any other cause of action where the liability of the parent or legal guardian is predicated on a common law basis." We touched on this earlier, and this language of the statute means that a parent or legal guardian may still be legally responsible for a child's actions under traditional civil fault principles (that’s what "common law" refers to here).
In other words, parents who know of a child’s propensity to act recklessly or carelessly may be under a general legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others. So, if a parent knows that their child has a habit of texting while driving -- let’s say a 17 year-old has racked up four traffic citations for "distracted driving" in less than one year -- and the child ends up causing a car accident while sending a text message, then the parent could be considered negligent for still allowing the child to drive. And that liability could arise in Illinois even under circumstances in which the state’s Parental Responsibility Law does not apply.
In addition to the "wilful or malicious acts" discussed above, when a minor commits the criminal offense of "retail theft" or shoplifting, 720 ILCS 5/16-27 makes a parent or legal guardian civilly liable for:
In most states, there is some type of parental responsibility law on the books. But the specifics of these laws vary pretty significantly. In some states, parents can only be held liable when a minor causes property damage as a result of an intentional act. In other states, a parent can be responsible when a minor causes a mishap like a car accident, and liability can extend to injuries suffered by other drivers and passengers.
Revised Code of Washington section 4.24.190 allows a civil lawsuit against a parent based on certain acts committed by a minor child who is under 18 and is living with the parent.
Section 4.24.190 can form the basis of a lawsuit against a parent any time their minor child:
So, in Washington, a parent can be on the financial hook for losses stemming from either property damage or personal injury caused by their minor child. But the key here is that the parent will only be held responsible under sections 4.24.190 when the minor acted “willfully or maliciously.” This is an elevated standard that requires the minor to have done something purposeful, or with ill will, or at least with clear disregard for the possibly detrimental consequences.
In other words, if the minor merely acts carelessly and ends up causing some kind of accident (such as a car accident), that is not enough to trigger a parent’s liability for any resulting injuries or vehicle damage in Washington. However, the statute would apply if a minor commits an assault and battery or some act of vandalism like graffiti.
Revised Code of Washington section 4.24.190 does not set any limit on who has the legal right to file a lawsuit against a parent over harm caused by a minor’s conduct.
So, any person who is injured by a minor’s willful or malicious act may file a lawsuit. And any owner of private or public property that was damaged or destroyed may make a claim -- that includes a person, a government entity, a corporation or other business entity, or any other private or public organization.
Section 4.24.190 specifies that no more than $5,000 can be collected from either or both parents as compensation for the damage to or destruction of property. So a claimant won’t be able to recover more than that amount from the parents, no matter how much property damage or personal harm resulted from the minor’s actions.
Section 4.24.190 makes clear that parental liability for a child’s actions may still exist under traditional fault theories, regardless of what the statutes say (or don’t say), declaring: “This section shall in no way limit the amount of recovery against the parent or parents for their own common law negligence.”
“Common law negligence” means fault under a non-statutory set of rules that has developed over time, usually through court decisions. Under common law, a parent may be considered negligent if:
For example, let’s say a 16 year- old child constantly texts while driving, and she even has four citations for distracted driving to prove it. Even though the parent is aware of this dangerous habit, he makes no effort to restrict the teen’s driving or curb her phone use. If the teen ends up causing a car accident while texting behind the wheel, the parent may be considered negligent. (Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.)
]]>In this article we'll summarize the key details of Utah’s parental responsibility laws, which focus on three areas:
Utah, like most states, sets the age of majority at 18. So, these laws only apply when a child is under the age of 18.
Under Utah Code section 53-3-211, the parent or guardian of a minor applying for a learner permit or driver's license must sign the application for the permit/license.
If neither a parent nor guardian has legal custody of a minor (e.g. when a child is in the custody of Family Services), any “responsible adult who is willing to assume [responsibility] may sign the application.” Section 53-3-211 imputes liability to the signor of the permit/license application for civil "compensatory damages" caused by a minor while operating a motor vehicle.
“Compensatory damages” are the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by people harmed by the accident. If property damage is involved, the compensatory damages are the amount required to fix the damaged property. If there are bodily injuries, the compensatory damages are the amount of medical bills a victim incurs as a result of the injury.
Under Section 53-3-211, liability between the application signor and the minor is joint and several. This means a claimant may pursue damages from the minor and adult, collectively, or from either one of them, individually.
Section 53-3-211 also limits liability to the minimum limits established by Utah’s car insurance Laws. In addition, if the owner of the vehicle has car insurance that would cover the minor for an amount that meets Utah’s minimum coverage requirements, the signor of the permit/license application is not liable.
Under Utah Code section 53-2-212, a vehicle owner who knowingly allows a minor to drive a vehicle, or a person who gives/furnishes a vehicle to a minor, is jointly and severally liable along with the minor if the minor negligently causes damage while driving the vehicle. The same insurance rules described above apply here, too, i.e., if there is insurance in place for the legal amounts to cover the minor, no liability is imputed to the adult.
Nothing in Section 53-2-212 prevents a victim from pursuing a direct negligence claim against a person who furnishes a vehicle to a minor. Also, keep in mind that section 53-2-212 provides for liability in addition to, not in lieu of, the liability established under Section 53-2-211.
Under Utah Code section 78(A)-6-1113, a custodial parent or guardian will be liable for up to $2,000 in damages if their minor causes property damage.
The statute makes a number of distinctions based on the type of property damage involved, and whether the act must be intentional, reckless, willful, or unlawful. That said, Section 78(A)-6-1113 encompasses nearly every imaginable type of property damage -- including theft and graffiti. So if a minor causes property damage of any kind, Section 78(A)-6-1113 is likely to come into play.
A parent's liability may be increased to $5,000 if the minor commits the offense in connection with a criminal street gang. However, a court may also waive all or part of a parent’s/guardian’s liability for “good cause” or if the parent/guardian made reasonable efforts to prevent the wrongful conduct, and reported the wrongful conduct to the property owner or law enforcement. In addition, a parent or guardian will not be liable if he/she made a reasonable effort to supervise, direct, or restrain their minor child.
Parents may find themselves on the hook for their children’s actions even when Utah’s parental responsibility laws do not apply.
Under a non-statutory set of tradition-based legal principles known as the "common law," parents and guardians may be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable harm to others when they know their child has certain "dangerous propensities."
]]>Texas Family Code section 41.001 imposes potential liability on “a parent or other person who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of a child.” So, liability could extend to a legal guardian in some situations.
Section 41.001 makes a parent liable for property damage only. The statute does not cover liability for personal injury or other kinds of harm caused by a child’s actions.
The first part of the statute makes a parent liable when a child’s negligent conduct results in property damage, and that conduct is reasonably attributable to the negligent failure of the parent to exercise their “duty of control and reasonable discipline” of the child. (Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.) Note that this part of the statute imposes liability on a parent regardless of the child’s age, as long as he or she is a minor under the age of 18.
The second part of the statute makes a parent liable “when the wilful and malicious conduct of a child” results in property damage. The parent’s liability is capped at $25,000 in “actual damages,” plus the other party’s “court costs and reasonable attorney's fees.” Note that this second part of the statute requires the child to act with some level of purpose or intent -- in other words, it doesn’t apply to straight accidents. This part of the statute also does not apply to the conduct of all children across the board, only to those who are at least 10 years old but under the age of 18.
As we touched on in the introduction, parents in Texas should not assume that they are free and clear from civil liability as long as their child’s actions do not fall within what is covered by these statutes. That’s not the case. Parents can still be considered liable and could face a personal injury lawsuit as a result of injuries caused by their child’s careless or intentional actions, under traditional “common law” principles of liability. For example, if a Texas parent knows that their child has a propensity to engage in certain reckless or careless conduct, that parent may have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
Learn more about Accidents and Injuries Involving Children.
]]>What does Tennessee's parental responsibility law have to say? In this article, we'll discuss the main points of this statute, which can be found at Tennessee Code Title 37, Chapter 10, Part 1. (Note: There is no direct link to the statute, so if you want to see the full text you’ll have to navigate to the citation from the main page of the Tennessee Code online).
Under Tennessee Code Title 37, Chapter 10, Part 1, parents and legal guardians can be held financially responsible if a minor child in their custody maliciously or willfully causes personal injury or property damage.
"Willful" is a legal term of art that means a person intended to take a specific action, and may have even intended a specific result. That is a heightened standard that requires more than mere carelessness on the part of the minor. So if a minor causes a car accident in Tennessee, that is not enough to trigger a parent’s liability for the resulting injuries or vehicle damage (assuming the crash really was an accident). However, the statute would apply if a minor commits an act of vandalism or an assault and battery on someone else.
Note: Like most states, Tennessee sets the age of majority at 18. So, the state's parental responsibility law only applies to the custodial parent of a child who was under 18 when the harmful act took place.
Under Tennessee Code section 37-10-101, a corporation, county, town, village, school district, or state entity -- in addition to individuals -- may collect damages from a minor's parents.
A parent's liability under section 37-10-102 is limited to $10,000, plus reimbursement of the claimant's costs of bringing the claim to court.
This $10,000 amount is limited to "actual damages." These are the out-of-expenses associated with the injury or property damage. For example, if an individual suffered an injury, the "actual damages" would be the amount of medical bills the individual incurred in relation to the injury. "Actual damages" does not include non-economic damages, such as "pain and suffering."
Tennessee Code section 37-10-103 explains when parents and guardians may be financially responsible for their children's actions even if the child's actions are not malicious or willful.
This law says that a parent or guardian may be liable for the activities of a minor who is in their control and causes personal injury or property damage if:
A parent will be presumed to know of a child's tendency to commit wrongful acts if the child has previously been charged and found responsible for such actions.
An example may help illustrate. Suppose a parent knows that their minor child comes home from school each day and throws rocks at houses around the neighborhood. In that situation, the parent knows that the child has a tendency to commit a tortious activity that could be expected to cause personal injury or property damage. If the parent fails to exercise reasonable means to prevent the child from throwing rocks at houses in the neighborhood, and the minor damages someone's property, or hurts someone with a thrown rock, there is a good chance the parent will be responsible for the damages that result.
]]>In this article, we'll discuss some of the specific rules laid out in South Carolina’s parental responsibility law, which can be found at South Carolina Code Ann. section 63-5-60.
In South Carolina, if a minor maliciously, or willfully, causes personal injury, or property damage (including theft), the minor’s parents will be responsible. This "maliciously or willfully" standard is an elevated one, and it means that the minor must act with some amount of intent and/or ill will. So, if a minor is simply careless and causes an accident where someone is injured or property is damaged, that is not enough to hold a parent liable under South Carolina law.
It does not matter whether the victim of a minor’s actions is an individual or an entity of some kind (that includes a company, a municipality, a religious organization, etc.). All kinds of claimants are entitled to recover their losses from the minor’s parents if the minor's conduct was malicious or willful and was the the legal cause of the resulting harm.
Under South Carolina's parental responsibility law, a parent's financial liability is limited to $5,000. So, for example, if a child willfully damages someone else's house, and it costs $6,000 to make necessary repairs, the homeowner will be limited to collecting $5,000 from the child's parents.
In addition to a limit on the amount of recovery, there is also a limit on the type of damages you can recover. Under South Carolina Code Ann. section 63-5-60, victims can only recover “actual damages.” For property damage, this would be the cost to repair, or replace, the damaged property. For bodily injuries, this would be the cost of the medical care to treat the victim’s injuries (up to the $5,000 limit). “Actual damages” does not include non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering.
Minors and their parents are jointly and severally liable, under Section 63-5-60, as long as the minor would have been responsible for the damage or injury had he or she been an adult. "Joint and several" is a legal term that means claimants have two recovery options -- they can recover their damages against the parent and minor, collectively, or they may collect all of their damages from the parent or the child, individually (with the $5,000 ceiling still in place for the parent's liability).
South Carolina Code Ann. section 63-5-60 does not eliminate a minor's responsibility and shift it entirely to the parents. Minors are still legally responsible for the consequences of their actions. And if the minor's actions would prompt a finding of liability under another statute, section 63-5-60 does not affect such a finding. In other words, section 63-5-60 creates liability in addition to -- not in lieu of -- liability under other South Carolina statutes.
Section 63-5-60 does not apply to people who have custody of a minor under the authority of a state agency or a county social services department. It also does not apply to state agencies or county departments of social services with legal custody of a minor.
Even in cases where section 63-5-60 does not apply, South Carolina parents may be held accountable for their children’s actions based on a non-statutory, traditional set of legal rules known as the "common law."
For example, imagine a parent is aware his or her child is an inattentive driver who talks or texts on the cell phone incessantly while driving. In spite of this knowledge, the parent allows the child to drive a vehicle, without any restrictions. If that child ends up causing an accident while talking or texting on the phone, the parent could be considered negligent for allowing the child to drive and failing to prevent foreseeable harm to others based on the child's known "dangerous propensities." Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.
]]>This article will focus on the key specifics of Pennsylvania's Parental Responsibility laws.
Pennsylvania's parental responsibility law can be found at Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Chapter 55.
In Pennsylvania, if a child is found liable, or guilty, of a “tortious act,” the child’s parent will be liable to the person who is injured. Pennsylvania Code Title 23 section 5501 defines “tortious act” as a willful act resulting in injury. “Injury” includes personal injuries and theft or property damage.
Liability in Criminal Proceedings
Under Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Section 5503, if a child is involved in a criminal proceeding stemming from a tortious act, the court must determine how much it will take to make the injured person whole. Once the court makes this determination, it will order the parents to make payment for that amount to the person injured. If the parents fail to comply with the court’s order, the injured person may file a civil lawsuit directly against the parents for the damages that are owed.
Liability in Civil Proceedings
Under Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Section 5504, if a court enters judgment against a child in a civil action because the child injured someone through a tortious act, and the child does not pay the judgment within 30 days, the injured person may petition the court for an order to show cause why the court should not enter judgment against the minor's parent(s). Parents may file an answer to the petition.
If there is a dispute between the injured person and the parent as to facts the court has not determined, the matter will be set for a trial. If there is no dispute, however, the court will enter judgment against the parents. It should be noted that a victim of a willful, tortious act of a child can file a civil lawsuit directly against the parents of the child who committed the act.
Liability Limits
Under Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Section 5505, there are limits on parents’ liability for tortious acts committed by their minor children. As a general rule, parents' liability is limited to $1,000 for any injuries suffered by any one person, or $2,500 for all injuries suffered by more than one person. This limit applies regardless of how many people are injured.
In the event a court determines that actual loss exceeds $2,500, parents can discharge themselves from liability by paying $2,500 to the court. The court, in turn, will attempt to distribute the funds in a proportionate manner, whether the claims are for bodily injury, theft, or destruction of property. And in case you are wondering what happens if two children of the same parents commit a tortious act, the damage limits still apply. In other words, the most any parent can be financially liable for is $2,500.
No Double Recovery and No Indemnity
There can be no double recovery under Pennsylvania Code Title 23 Chapter 55. If judgment is entered against a child, and that child's parent makes a payment (up to $2,500), the child's liability is reduced by the amount of the payment.
Once a parent makes payment, he/she does not have a right of indemnity or contribution against the child. In other words, the parent cannot turn around and recover their money from the child who committed the tortious act.
Parent Must Have Custody or Control to Be Liable
Parents can only be liable for the tortious acts of their children in Pennsylvania if they have custody or control over the child. However, a parent who has deserted a child is still on the legal hook for the child's tortious acts.
Even if a minor's actions fall outside the scope of the laws we have discussed above, a traditional, non-statutory set of rules known as the "common law" may still hold parents accountable for the actions of their minor children.
It isn't an easy case to prove, but usually if a parent knows that their engages in certain dangerous activities, the parent may be under a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent the child from causing foreseeable harm to others. Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.
]]>Ohio's Parental Responsibility Laws focus on four (4) areas:
A minor, by definition, is anyone who has not reached the age of majority. Ohio, like most states, sets the age of majority at 18, so the laws discussed below apply only when a child is under the age of 18.
Under Section 3109.09, a parent (or legal guardian) can be liable for up to $10,000, plus reimbursement of the claimant's cost of taking the matter to court, if a minor in the parent's custody willfully damages property belonging to another.
This law applies to property damage -- and theft. One side note: The $10,000 limit on compensatory damages does not apply to certain acts that constitute vandalism, desecration, or ethnic intimidation (more on those later).
If a court enters judgment in favor of a school, under Section 3109.09, and the parent and school agree, the court may order the parent to perform community service in lieu of making full payment on the judgment. If a court goes this route, it must specify in its order the amount of the judgment and the type and number of hours of community service to be performed.
If a minor child willfully and maliciously assaults someone by means of force that is likely to produce great bodily harm, the parent of the child will be liable to the injured person. "Willful" is a legal term of art that means a person intends the action taken, and may also intend to cause the harm that resulted. As with property damage, liability is limited to $10,000, plus court costs.
Keep in mind that a parent's personal injury liability for a minor child's actions does not extend to accidents caused by the minor, but it would extend to intentional torts like assault.
As mentioned above, there are some cases where the liability limits on parents can be lifted. If a minor child commits an act of vandalism, desecration, or ethnic intimidation, the person who suffers the loss can seek recovery from the offender's parents up to $15,000, plus reimbursement of court-related expenses and attorney's fees.
Under Section 2307.70, a parent and the parent's minor child are jointly and severally liable. In other words, an injured person can seek recovery from the parent and child collectively -- or from either one of them individually.
In Ohio, an adult must sign a minor's application for a driver's license or permit. If a minor child commits an act of negligence, or willful or wanton misconduct, while driving a motor vehicle, the adult who signed the minor's application will be financially responsible for the resulting damage. The minor and the adult are considered jointly and severally liable. Liability of the adult may be avoided by providing proof of financial responsibility, e.g. proof of insurance.
Parents may find themselves on the financial hook for their children’s actions even when Ohio's parental responsibility laws do not apply. Typically, these statutes focus on providing specific remedies for specific actions. But under the non-statutory "common law" rules -- which are derived mostly from court decisions handed down over the years -- parents and guardians can be deemed negligent for failing to adequately supervise minor children.
Essentially, parents who know their child has a propensity to act in a dangerous or reckless manner may be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent the child from causing foreseeable harm to others. For more information on general fault principles, check out Negligence, the Duty of Care, and Fault for an Accident.
]]>New Mexico's Parental Responsibility Laws focus on two areas:
Like most states, New Mexico sets the age of majority at 18. So, these statutes only apply to the custodial parents/guardians of children who are younger than 18.
In New Mexico, pursuant to New Mexico Statutes section 32A-2-27, parents and guardians who have custody of a minor can be held responsible if the minor maliciously or willfully injures a person or damages property.
A parent or guardian's financial liability is limited to $4,000, plus court costs and (in some cases, attorney fees) incurred by the person who was harmed and brought the legal action.
The parent or guardian's liability is limited to "actual damages," which refers to any quantifiable losses stemming from the minor's actions. These include out-of-pocket losses like payment of medical bills and lost income for personal injuries, and payment to replace or repair damaged property. "Actual damages" does not include non-economic losses such as pain and suffering. If serious injuries are involved, these types of damages can get quite high, so this is an important distinction.
There are a couple more things to keep in mind with regard to section 32A-2-7:
New Mexico Statutes section 66-5-11 requires a parent, guardian, employer, or any responsible person to sign a minor’s application for a driver’s license or instruction permit. If the minor, through any act of negligence, or willful misconduct, causes damage while driving, liability will be imputed to the person who signed the minor's application. Liability is "joint and several," which means the parent and the minor can be held responsible for the resulting damages individually or collectively.
Liability is not capped at any dollar amount under section 66-5-11, so parents or guardians can be liable for any and all injuries and vehicle damage resulting from a crash caused by a minor child, whether it's a fender-bender or an accident caused by the minor's drunk driving. And since damages are not capped or limited, that includes compensation for pain and suffering resulting from the car accident.
Parents, guardians, and other adults can avoid liability under section 66-5-11 by depositing proof of financial responsibility with the state. This can be done in the form of proof of insurance, or a bond.
Even in situations where New Mexico's parental responsibility laws do not apply, parents may find themselves financially responsible for their children’s actions. Under a non-statutory secondary legal authority known as the "common law," parents who know their child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly may be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
Suppose a parent knows his or her child purchased some throwing knives, and further knows the child tosses the knives around without taking any precaution for the safety of others. Clearly, the parent is on notice of the child's behavior; but the parent fails to do anything to stop it.
If the child then causes an accident by recklessly throwing these weapons around, the parent could be considered negligent for failing to take reasonable steps to control the child's behavior. In practical terms, it wouldn't be all that easy to prove that kind of case, but the parents could still be on the legal hook. Learn more about Negligence, the Duty of Care, and Fault for an Accident.
]]>In this article, we’ll look at Missouri’s parental responsibility law, including the kinds of conduct that will trigger a parent's liability under the statute, and the extent of a parent’s financial exposure. Read on for the details.
Missouri's parental responsibility statute is found at Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 537.045. It describes, specifically, when parents or guardians can be held responsible for actions taken by minors who are within their custody, and what the financial consequences might be.
If a minor in Missouri purposely marks, defaces, or otherwise damages property -- and has a judgment entered against them -- that minor’s custodial parent(s) or guardian(s) will be liable for the judgment.
In order to collect against the minor’s parent or guardian, the property owner must name the parent or guardian as a defendant in a lawsuit against the minor. However, liability is limited to $2,000.
Note: Although owners of damages property can pursue compensation from a minor’s parents under section 537.045, this does not mean they cannot also pursue damages from the minor. Only if any balance remains (above the $2,000) can the injured party pursue a claim against the minor for the cost of repairing or replacing the damaged property.
Parents and guardians (except foster parents) will be liable if a minor child in their custody has a judgment entered against them for purposely causing personal injury to another person. Again, the parent must be a named defendant in the lawsuit, and liability is limited to $2,000. Also, as with property damage, the injured party can pursue the minor for the balance beyond the $2,000 parental limit.
Keep in mind that this law does not apply to car accidents or other mishaps caused by the minor. The child must have intended to do what he or she did, to some measurable extent.
Missouri Revised Statutes, Section 537.045 has an interesting twist to it. Once judgment is entered against a minor for property damage or personal injury, the judge may order the parent or guardian, and the minor, to work for the property owner, or injured person, in lieu of payment. All parties must agree to this arrangement.
Even in cases where Missouri's parental responsibility laws do not apply, parents may find themselves on the financial hook for their children’s actions. Non-statutory, general traditional principles of fault (known as the "common law") may impose additional parental liability in a more general sense.
A legal treatise often looked to by judges, the Restatement of Torts provides: "A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to control his minor child as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from so conducting itself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) knows of or should know of the necessity and opportunity of exercising such control."
In other words, parents who know their child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly may be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
For example, imagine a parent knows his or her child is an inattentive driver who constantly talks or texts while driving, and the child has even received three citations for distracted driving. Despite all of that, the parent allows the child to continue to drive the family car, and makes no effort to restrict the child's use of his or her phone. You might say the parent was "on notice" of the child's dangerous propensities in that situation. So, if the child ends up causing an accident while talking or texting, the parent could be considered negligent for failing to prevent foreseeable harm. Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.
]]>This article will explain Mississippi’s parental responsibility laws in detail.
Mississippi’s Parental Responsibility Laws focus on three areas:
(Note: There is no direct link to the statutes listed above. The link takes you to the start page for the official online version of the Mississippi Code. From there you can navigate through to the relevant statute using the citation provided.)
As for how young a child must be in order to trigger parent/guardian liability in Mississippi, there are different age designations for the different statutes:
Mississippi Code section 93-13-2 imposes liability on parents if their minor child maliciously or willfully damages or destroys someone else’s property. Unlike a number of other parental responsibility laws regarding willful and malicious activity, section 93-13-2 does not address bodily injury -- only property damage.
Under section 93-13-2, property owners can recover up to $5,000, plus their court costs, from the parents of a minor who maliciously and willfully causes damage to property. Parents who have had their custody rights stripped away by a court order are not subject to liability under the statute.
Mississippi Code section 97-15-1 can impose liability upon minors and/or parents in addition to what section 93-13-2 allows.
Section 97-15-1 can be used to hold parents liable for vandalism committed by a minor who is within their custody and control. The penalty is the actual cost of replacing or repairing the vandalized property, plus a fine that can range between $200 and $500.
In addition to the penalties described above, a minor, or the minor’s parent, can be imprisoned up to six months under this statute. This is an uncommon penalty, and courts will likely not impose it on a parent unless the vandalism is severe, and the parent could have reasonably prevented it but chose not to.
In Mississippi, a parent, or other responsible adult, must sign a minor’s application for a driver’s license or permit. And under Mississippi Code section 63-1-25 a minor’s negligence or willful misconduct while operating a vehicle will be imputed to the person who signed the application. Specifically, the person who signed the application becomes jointly and severally liable with the minor. This simply means the adult and minor can be responsible collectively, or individually, for the damages the minor causes.
So, a parent or guardian who signs a minor's driver's license application can be on the financial hook for all injuries and vehicle damage if the minor ends up causing a car accident.
Parents may still find themselves liable for their children’s actions even in situations when Mississippi’s parental responsibility laws do not specifically apply.
Under a non-statutory set of legal principles known as the "common law," when a parent knows that their child has a propensity to act in a dangerous or reckless manner, the parent may be under a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
Suppose parents know their child comes home from school each day and hits golf balls out of the back yard across the neighborhood. If a parent allows this behavior to continue, and the minor ends up injuring someone with an errant golf ball, the parent may be deemed partially responsible, although it may not be the easiest case to prove. Learn more about Negligence, the Duty of Care, and Fault for an Accident.
]]>Minnesota has a number of laws that may be used to hold a parent liable for actions taken by a minor. Read on for the details.
Minnesota’s parental responsibility laws apply to the following kinds of actions taken by children:
Like most states, Minnesota sets the age of majority at 18. So these statutes only apply to the custodial parents/guardians of children who are under 18.
Under Minnesota Statutes section 540.18, if a minor willfully or maliciously causes property damage, or bodily injury, the parent or guardian the minor is living with will be liable along with the minor -- unless the adult has custody under the authority of Human Services, or the state.
Liability is joint and several, which means the injured party can collect from the parent/guardian and the minor collectively or individually. BUT the parent's financial liability is limited to $1,000, no matter how serious the injury or how significant the property damage caused by the minor. That's a pretty low ceiling.
Keep in mind that section 540.18 only applies to injuries and damage resulting from willful or malicious actions taken by the minor. That means this law can't be used to hold a parent liable when a minor causes a car accident or some other mishap as a result of mere carelessness or negligence. The minor must have acted purposefully, to some extent.
Bias offenses refer to criminal conduct that is directed toward someone because of their race, color, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or national origin. Minnesota Statutes section 611A.79 imposes liability on parents and guardians for bias offenses committed by minor children, up to $5,000, for all damages that result from the offense -- including injuries and medical expenses.
Liability may be excluded, however, if the parent or guardian made reasonable efforts to exercise control over the minor’s behavior.
Anyone, of course, can be held liable for stealing property. And in Minnesota, besides criminal sanctions, there is a financial penalty of $50, or 100 percent of the value of the stolen property, whichever is more, for every theft offense.
In addition to personal responsibility, Minnesota Statutes section 604.14 imposes financial liability on parents or guardians for thefts committed by their minor children. Liability is not limited under this section, so a parent/guardian can be held responsible for the total value of the stolen property.
Even in cases where Minnesota's parental responsibility laws do not apply, parents may still find themselves responsible for their children’s actions under the "common law," which is a set of principles that does not depend on state law or court decisions.
One "common law" authority known as the Restatement of Torts provides a good summary of a parent's legal obligations when it comes to their minor children:
"A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to control his minor child as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from so conducting itself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) knows of or should know of the necessity and opportunity of exercising such control."
In other words, parents who know their child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly may, generally, be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others. Learn more about Negligence, the Duty of Care, and Fault for an Accident.
]]>Indiana has passed a number of laws that specify when parents will be civilly responsible for the harmful actions of their children. These laws identify the types of conduct that could trigger liability of parents and guardians, and they also spell out the extent of that potential liability. Indiana’s parental responsibility laws focus on three areas:
Parents or guardians can only be held liable for certain conduct of their minor children. And since Indiana defines the age of majority as 18 years old (as do most states), the Indiana laws we're discussing here do not apply to parents whose children are over the age of 18.
Under Indiana Code, Section 34-31-4, a parent/guardian will be financially responsible for certain harm to a person, or damage to property, stemming from a minor's conduct if:
There are a couple of important limitations on this liability:
"Actual damages" means that the injured person can't recover money for non-economic losses like "pain and suffering," which can ordinarily be a pretty significant component of damages in a personal injury case.
Under Section 2 of Indiana Code, Section 34-31-4, parents and guardians can be held responsible if their minor child causes bodily harm or property damage while participating in criminal activity as a member of a gang.
In order for the parent or guardian to be liable under this part of the law:
This statute is clearly geared toward reducing gang-related violence. To that end, the statute does not place any limit on liability, so non-economic damages like "pain and suffering" are on the table.
Like many states, Indiana requires parents, guardians, or another responsible adult to sign a minor's application for a permit or driver's license. Under Indiana Code, Section 9-24-9-4, the person who signs this application agrees to be jointly liable -- along with the minor -- for any injuries or damages the minor causes, and is liable for, through operation of a motor vehicle.
If the adult who signed the application wishes to be relieved of this responsibility, he or she can submit a verified written request. If this requested is submitted, the minor's permit or driver's license is immediately suspended, and the adult is off the financial hook. Of course, the adult is also absolved of legal responsibility for the minor's driving once the minor turns 18.
Indiana's parental responsibility laws will not apply to every situation where a minor causes injury or property damage. That said, parents may still find themselves responsible for their children’s actions. Under traditional principles of "common law," parents have a responsibility to use reasonable care to control their minor child and prevent intentional harm and reckless behavior likely to pose an unreasonable risk of bodily injury. In other words, if a parent knows his or her child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly, the parent may, generally speaking, be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
Learn more about Proving Fault for Accidents and Injuries.
]]>Every state's law is different when it comes to covered conduct and the limits of financial responsibility, but parents (and legal guardians, among others) can be responsible for three different categories of damages caused by minor children:
This article focuses on key components of Colorado's parental responsibility laws.
Colorado has passed a number of laws that dictate when parents will be responsible for the actions of their children. Specifically, Colorado’s Parental Responsibility Laws focus on two areas:
Under parental responsibility laws, parents and legal guardians are only responsible for the actions of their minor children. The age of minority is defined differently from state to state. Colorado, like most states, sets the age of majority at 18; so the laws discussed below apply only when a child is under the age of 18.
In Colorado, pursuant to Colorado Rev. Stat. Section 13-21-107, the parents of a minor living at home can be liable if the minor maliciously, or willfully, damages, or destroys, property (real or personal) belonging to another.
The parents can be liable to virtually any type of property owner imaginable, e.g. individuals, cities, school districts, corporations, religious organizations, etc.
The parents will be responsible for the actual amount of the damages, up to $3,500. In addition, the parents will be responsible for reimbursement of court costs and attorney fees paid by the property owner in bringing the matter to court.
Parents of minors living at home can also be responsible for bodily injuries their minor child knowingly causes (such as through intentional acts like assault and battery). As with property damage, parents are responsible for the actual amount of the injuries (up to $3,500), plus court costs and attorney fees.
$3,500 may not sound like much, but it can add up under certain circumstances. Parents may be liable to multiple persons or property owners. For instance, if a minor (or group of minors) vandalizes several cars, each car owner would be entitled to collect up to $3,500, plus costs and fees.
Under Colorado Rev. Stat. Section 13-21-107.5, if a minor is caught shoplifting, the minor's parents will be held financially responsible to the owner of the property. Liability will attach to the parents whether the minor takes property without paying for it or alters a price tag on the property.
In terms of what parents are responsible for, they have to pay for the actual damages, i.e. the value of the property. On top of that, parents may be subject to a penalty (payable to the property owner) of between $100 and $250.
Note: There is no limit on the amount of actual damages a property owner can recover against a minor's parents under the shoplifting statute (unlike the $3,500 limit on parental liability when a minor maliciously, or willfully, damages property or injures another).
Even if a minor's actions fall outside the scope of the laws outlined above, the common law may still hold parents accountable for the minor's actions. For instance, if a parent knows his or her child engages in certain activities in a careless, or reckless, manner; the parent may be considered negligent for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the child from causing foreseeable harm.
For example, a parent may know from experience that their minor child tends to speed while driving a car. In spite of this knowledge, the parent freely allows the child to drive without any restrictions. If that child causes an accident because he or she was speeding, the parent may be responsible for resulting injuries and property damage.
For more information, check out our section on Accidents, Injuries, and Children.
]]>This article addresses the key points of Nebraska's parental responsibility law.
Nebraska's Parental Responsibility Law can be found at Nebraska Revised Statutes section 43-801.
Parents and guardians can only be held accountable for the actions of their minor children (meaning a child who has not reached the age of majority). Nebraska sets the age of majority at 18, so the law discussed below only applies when a child is under the age of 18.
Under Nebraska Revised Statutes section 43-801, parents are jointly and severally liable when a minor child in their custody willfully and intentionally causes personal injury or destroys property (real or personal). "Jointly and severally" simply means the damaged party can collect the amount of damages from the parent and minor together -- or the entire sum of damages from the parent or the minor individually.
"Willful" is a legal term of art. Uusally, it means that the person intended the action taken, and may have also intended the result of that action. For example, if a child intends to throw a baseball to a friend, but instead, accidentally throws too high and breaks a window, that action would not be considered "willful." However, if a child aims and throws a baseball at a window -- with the intent to break it -- that action would be considered "willful."
With regard to personal injuries, Nebraska Revised Statutes section 43-801 limits recovery to the extent of hospital and medical expenses, up to $1,000. In other words, parental liability is limited to “actual damages.” "Actual damages" can be defined as all quantifiable losses stemming from the minor's actions. It is important to note that "actual damages" do not include non-economic losses such as pain and suffering. These types of damages often add up in a typical civil lawsuit over serious injuries; however, under section 43-801 parents can't be sued for non-economic damages. And remember that liability is also capped at $1,000.
There is no limit, under section 43-801, on the amount of recovery for property damage.
Parents and guardians can be responsible for their minor's actions even in cases where Nebraska's Parental Responsibility Laws do not apply. Under a non-statutory set of legal principles known as the "common law," parents may have a duty to exercise reasonable care to monitor and control their minor child in certain situations, so as to prevent harm to others.
That duty is not universal, however. It typically only extends to parents who know their child has a propensity to act recklessly or carelessly. In that scenario, a parent may be under a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
For example, imagine a parent knows his or her child is an inattentive driver who constantly talks or texts on the cell phone while driving. Imagine further that, in spite of this knowledge, the parent does nothing to curb his or her child's careless and reckless behavior. If that child ends up causing an accident because he was talking or texting on the phone, the parent could be considered negligent for not doing something to control the child's behavior. Learn more about Negligence, the Legal Duty of Care, and Fault for an Accident.
]]>You can find the full text of Oklahoma’s parental responsibility law at Oklahoma Statutes Title 23 section 23-10 (browse the official online version of the Oklahoma Statutes).
Under this law, parents can be held financially liable for certain harm caused by a minor when:
Section 23-10 allows any of the following entities to file a lawsuit seeking compensation from the parent or parents of the minor:
So, pretty much any person or organization that has been harmed by a minor’s conduct can bring an action under 23-10. But it’s important to emphasize that a parent can only be liable under section 23-10 when a minor “commits any criminal or delinquent act.” That means the minor’s action must rise to the level of criminal behavior as defined by Oklahoma’s criminal statutes. In other words, if the minor merely acts carelessly and ends up causing some kind of mishap (such as a car accident), that is not enough to trigger a parent’s liability under Oklahoma’s parental responsibility law. But the statute would apply to acts of vandalism, or when a minor commits an assault and battery.
This area of the statute sets clear financial limits. Let’s say a claimant sues a parent under section 23-10, and wins a court judgment holding the parent liable for medical bills or property damage resulting from the minor’s conduct. Section 23-10 specifically caps a parent’s financial liability at $2,500, so the claimant won’t be able to collect more than that amount from the parent.
Parental liability for a child’s actions may still exist in Oklahoma under traditional fault theories like negligence, beyond the scope of any statute.
Basically, a parent may be liable for any resulting harm if they know of their child’s dangerous tendencies, yet they fail to take reasonable steps to properly supervise the child, and someone ends up getting injured in a way that was foreseeable. This isn’t an easy case to prove against a parent, but the potential for liability is definitely there. (Learn more about Negligence and the Duty of Care.)
]]>Georgia’s Parental Responsibility laws describe the circumstances under which parents might be responsible for the actions of their children. Georgia's laws cover:
(Note: There is no direct link to the online versions of these statutes. The links above take you to the main page of the online version of the Georgia Code. You'll need to navigate through to the relevant citations.)
Keep in mind that Georgia sets the age of majority at 18, so the statutes we discuss below only apply to custodial parents/guardians of minor children.
A "tort" is a civil law term that encompasses any kind of act resulting in harm. And under Georgia Code section 51-2-2, parents will be liable for any tort their child commits. It makes no difference whether the child commits the tort intentionally, or due to negligence. The parent will be on the financial hook -- period.
So, section 51-2-2 could trigger a parent's financial responsibility for injuries and property damage resulting from a car accident or any other kind of mishap.
Parents in Georgia will also be financially responsible for damages that result from the malicious or willful actions of their children. Liability under Georgia Code section 51-2-3 extends to both property damage and medical bills that result from bodily injuries.
The amount of a parent's liability is limited to $10,000, for all damages stemming from the child's actions, plus court costs payable to the claimant who was harmed and brought the action to court.
In Georgia, a case known as Hicks v. Newman brought an important interpretation of parental responsibility for car accidents caused by a family member under a legal concept known as the "family purpose doctrine."
In Hicks, the Georgia Court of Appeals explained that mere ownership of a vehicle, without more, is insufficient to establish the vehicle owner's liability for the negligence of another driver. However, when an owner of a vehicle maintains the vehicle for the use and convenience of his family, the owner may be held liable for the negligence of a family member who was using the vehicle for a family purpose.
To be liable under the family purpose doctrine, there are four (4) requirements:
(1) the defendant must own -- or have an interest in or control over -- the automobile
(2) the defendant must have made the automobile available for family use
(3) the driver must be a member of the defendant's immediate household, and
(4) the vehicle must have been driven with the permission or acquiescence of the defendant.
Learn more about Car Accidents and Negligence: When You are Liable for Another Person's Driving.
Parents and guardians can be responsible for a minor's actions even in cases where Georgia's parental responsibility laws do not apply. Parents have a duty, at common law, to exercise reasonable care to monitor and control a minor child who has a known propensity to act recklessly or carelessly.
A parent may, in that situation, be expected to take reasonable steps to prevent that child from causing foreseeable harm to others.
For example, suppose a parent knows from experience that their minor child tends to speed while driving a motor vehicle. Suppose further, that in spite of this knowledge, the parent freely allows the child to drive without any restrictions. If that child causes an accident because he or she was speeding, the parent may well be responsible for any resultant damages (bodily injury or property).
]]>