Are parents responsible for their kids actions?

everyday taxi

Hi, im wondering if anyone can help me out with this query? A kid aged abt 6 decided to use a stone and draw on the bonnet of my car. Am i able or legally entitled to expect the parents to pay for the repair?

January

If you can prove it was the child then I'm sure you could...

Kosseegan

January wrote: »

If you can prove it was the child then I'm sure you could...

Since when? Have you any legal authoprity you can cite for your proposition?

NUTLEY BOY

everyday taxi wrote: »

Hi, im wondering if anyone can help me out with this query? A kid aged abt 6 decided to use a stone and draw on the bonnet of my car. Am i able or legally entitled to expect the parents to pay for the repair?

NO.

Parents are not legally liable for the actions of their children solely by virtue of the fact that they are the "offenders" parent(s). You cannot go to a parent and seek damages purely because they are a parent.

However, parents may be held vicariously liable for the actions of their children if the child was acting as the agent of the parent at the relevant time. On the facts it is very hard to see any basis for ataching vicarious liablity to the parents in this case.

Technically, the child is liable for his own tortious actions and you would have to sue him. Good luck with that....

Bodywork on a car can be quite expensive to repair. If your loss is financially significant you could always threaten to sue and ask the parents to refer the matter to their public liability insurers.

Fittle

This is something I've wondered about from time to time. My 9yr old kicks his ball on the road all day - he often kicks it quite close to our neighbours 09 BMW:eek: They have a drive, but he always parks on the road...Once, only once, my son set the alarm off!
Needless to say, I am forever shouting at him to stop kicking the ball near that car but sometimes it falls on deaf ears. So are you saying that if he ever did any damage to that car (aside from what I'd do to him!) that I couldn't be held responsible by my neighbour?

FreudianSlippers

My understanding is that in English law parents can be held liable where the tort arose out of the parent's negligence or if the tort was wilful and intentional by the child.

Seems to be a rather new development though in light of the rise of juvenile delinquency in the UK... not sure if that has ever arisen here (yet) but I'd imagine eventually we'll need to adopt something similar.


I should say as an aside that a few months ago children were throwing stones at cars on Blackhorse Avenue and hit my car and the taxi in front (as we were driving by) and I rang the Gardaí as did the taxi driver. The kids ran off when we stopped, the Gardaí said they knew about it and would come around again and investigate, but the parents were covering for these kids and were, in fact, encouraging the behaviour (according to the Garda that is).
So, IMO we really need reform in this area as described above.

littlemac1980

I know what Judge Judy would do!

FreudianSlippers

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I know what Judge Judy would do!

Get her production company to pay for the damages up to $5,000?

Resend

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

NO.

Parents are not legally liable for the actions of their children solely by virtue of the fact that they are the "offenders" parent(s). You cannot go to a parent and seek damages purely because they are a parent.

However, parents may be held vicariously liable for the actions of their children if the child was acting as the agent of the parent at the relevant time. On the facts it is very hard to see any basis for ataching vicarious liablity to the parents in this case.

Technically, the child is liable for his own tortious actions and you would have to sue him. Good luck with that....

Bodywork on a car can be quite expensive to repair. If your loss is financially significant you could always threaten to sue and ask the parents to refer the matter to their public liability insurers.

what is the point of threatening to sue if the parents do not have liability?

NUTLEY BOY

Resend wrote: »

what is the point of threatening to sue if the parents do not have liability?

They may not know that they have no liability. As good neighbours or out of goodwill they might feel that they would like to reimburse the OP as distinct from taking the strictly technical legal approach.


Alternatively, they may think that they have a liability for reasons that the OP may not know. For example, if the parents know that junior has a repeated propensity for damaging other peoples' property they might have a liability in their own right for their negligence.

NUTLEY BOY

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My understanding is that in English law parents can be held liable where the tort arose out of the parent's negligence or if the tort was wilful and intentional by the child......

A parent can indeed be liable in tort for the actions of a child where the parent has been negligent. There is nothing new about that. This is the parents personal liability as distinct from their vicarious liability for the actions of the child.

Suppose that Daddy lets Junior, 5 years of age, wander out on the road with a portable drill and Junior decides to drill holes in peoples' cars. Assume Daddy sees Junior leave the premises with the drill and just does not bother to do anything about it. Arguably, that would be Daddy's negligence.

Resend

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

They may not know that they have no liability. As good neighbours or out of goodwill they might feel that they would like to reimburse the OP as distinct from taking the strictly technical legal approach.


Alternatively, they may think that they have a liability for reasons that the OP may not know. For example, if the parents know that junior has a repeated propensity for damaging other peoples' property they might have a liability in their own right for their negligence.

ism't that the same as saying they do have a liability?

mstq

I've been thinking about the very same topic recently...

You can sue them for negligence - they failed to raise and manage their children at "appropriate level". Simple enough

But, imho, it might be better to go for HSE instead - how? "Contract for life" (I know... long shot ). People who are receiving money from HSE get them because they are alive, and that is form of an employment. Law it self in this situation would be ban on how to do the job, instead of a ban on the job. There -imho- It might be possible to get HSE vicariously liable.

I really hope that someone with money in their pockets would try to argue this in front of SC. Law regarding parent-child responsibility is sooo crap in here and HSE keeps supporting financially those scumbag families.

In mainland Europe country parents are financially liable for their children. Only situation where they're not are serious criminal charges such as drug trafficking, assaults, murder, etc. If crime refers to monetary values (theft, broken window, etc), parents are fully liable. Plus, in some situations, parents might lose "parenting rights" - they are literally forbidden from having kids.


Just on a side not - if someone thrown a rock at your car, can you get out and slap the living **** out of him? Car is property and you have rights to protect it... right?

Resend

mstq wrote: »

Just on a side not - if someone thrown a rock at your car, can you get out and slap the living **** out of him? Car is property and you have rights to protect it... right?

yes if you are prepared to be prosecuted for assault

mstq

Resend - so I can't protect my property?

Resend

mstq wrote: »

Resend - so I can't protect my property?

beating the living **** out of him is beyond protecting your property. you can take reasonable steps to protect your property and use reasonable force to protect it. But beating the living **** out of him is beyond reasonable force

NUTLEY BOY

Resend wrote: »

ism't that the same as saying they do have a liability?

No.

In one situation a parent may be vicariously liable for a child's action.

In another situation a parent may be personally liable for the action of a child through that parent's own negligence.

The difference might seem somewhat subtle and almost Jesuitical (apologies to the Js) in it's reasoning but there is actually a difference fine though it may seem.

The context in which I originally posted was that of the the OP question about the potential liability of the parents for the actions of the child.

mstq

Resend wrote: »

beating the living **** out of him is beyond protecting your property. you can take reasonable steps to protect your property and use reasonable force to protect it. But beating the living **** out of him is beyond reasonable force

Any examples of reasonable force? If you throw a brick at me, can I throw it back? :d

234

It's not a question of an eye for an eye. You can use reasonable force in self-defence and in defence of your property. What is reasonable depends on the circumstances. The force used can never be excessive. If somebody throws a brick at you throwing one back would be almost useless in terms of defending yourself. The smartest thing to do would be to run away but you could tackle the person and restrain them (probably).

I am a friend

Well a 6 year old should not be out wandering out on his / her for as long as it took them to do the damage.... That is negligence...

Resend

mstq wrote: »

Any examples of reasonable force? If you throw a brick at me, can I throw it back? :d

not if my aim is good :D

Resend

Straying a bit off topic but what about children playing in the roadway. Of course the driver has to stop etc but toay i stopped and when getting in off the road a kid fell off his bike. If he was hurt who is responsible? I was stopped well back , handbrake on and not rushing him