The IMHO thread about only tutoring students in a public place to protect against false accusations made me wonder about it. Say a minor accuses an adult (like a teacher or counselor) of sexual harassment or molestation. The adults suffers various financial losses because of this (lost income, legal fees, etc) and their reputation is destroyed. But the adult manages to prove the minor was lying (or the minor later admits it). Can the adult sue the minor’s parents for the defamation commited by their child? Could the minor be sued directly? Granted the minor probally has less money that their parents, but lots of minors have things like savings accounts, college funds, certificates of deposit, etc that’s in their name (even if they can’t access them on their own). Plus isn’t there usually a pretty long window (like 20 yrs) to enforce a judgement? Once the minor turns of age presumably they’d eventually get a job and their wages could be garnished.
IIRC, based on law in Canada, the adult cannot be held responsible unless you can show they encouraged the behaviour or caused it through neglect. This includes slander or libel, as well as damages like throwing a rock through your window. Basically, you need show it is partly the parents’ fault too. I imagine the US law is similar, although every so often politicians try to appeal to the masses by proposing laws to hold parents accountable.
Not sure where a lawsuit against the child would go. I don’t think children, especially younger ones, can be held to the same level of care as an adult, since they can’t enter into contracts. Interesting question. Plus, many college funds are actually held by the parent, or held in trust for a specific purpose. Sally can’t just take her college fund and buy a Ferrari, whereas there are many stories of parents spending their kids’ college fund. So I guess it depends on what the actual ownership and conditions on any funds are too.
It differs from state-to-state but IIRC in Illinois a parent is liable for up to $2,500 of damage their children cause. So, if their kid throws a rock through a window that kid’s parents will have to pay to replace it. As noted if the parents are aware of a problem with the child and do not take steps to stop it they might be held more liable.
The kid, if they have assets, might still be held liable for more but then most kids do not have significant assets of their own.
I am totally guessing and am most emphatically not a lawyer anywhere, but couldn’t the adult in question sue the parents (or other teachers, psychologists, or whoever) for defamation anyway because they believed the little bastard without reasonable supporting evidence?
Most of the losses suffered by a falsely-accused person would not be from the child, but from official groups.
Like loss of income: that would be because the school suspended them from teaching while the matter was investigated. So they should sue the school for their salary once they are cleared. And legal fees are likely because they were legally charged with a crime by the local prosecutor, so they should go after them for their legal fees.
It’s true that the false accusation from the child started the whole process, but the actual losses to the accused person were caused by the actions others took based on that false accusation.
In both Canda and the USA, IIRC (IANAL) the agents of the state cannot be sued for doing their job; unless you can show (thinking Duke Lacross team) that the behavour was deliberately ignoring reasonable facts and constituted malicious prosecution, above and beyond the call of duty - basically abuse of office.
Good luck in any jurisdiction getting the state to pay your legal bills because you were found not guilty.
The problem with this senerio is even under good circumstances, it’s hard to prove slander and libel. Most cases you read about involving money are the result of an out of court settlement. In the USA but not elsewhere, slander and libel also involve the concept of “willful intent.” This mean it’s not enough the kid said it but he said it willfully, in other words he didn’t think of it at the spur of the moment and also that it was deliberate. It also means the child would need a firm understanding of what the action meant.
So the child would have to say, Teacher gave me an “F” in school. I’m gonna say he molested me. Yeah I know it’s false and he’ll get fired, but so what, he deserves it. Boy I can’t wait for him to get fired and lose his house and have his wife divorce him and take his kids…
OK exaggeration for effect, but you get the idea. The act would have to be deliberate, will intent and the child would have to have a full understanding of the consequences of said act.
Remember defamation of character is not a crime. It’s a civil tort and to win it you have to actually PROVE you were harmed in some way. This is not as easy as it seems. For instance, if the teacher loses her job, she also has the duty to mitigate damage. If she didn’t bother to look for another job, assuming she’d not get one this goes against her.
If she could get a job in another field of work, but not her chosen profession, and didn’t take it, this would go against it. And so forth
A defamation suit would look at the amount of money the wronged person claims to be out. Then it would see if that’s legit. If so then the court would decide what the wronged person could’ve done to prevent being out that much money. What’s left is the result of the case. Judges don’t like to award punative damages, and when they do they are often lowered on appeal. Furthermore a judge may be less inclined to award punative damages if it sends the wrong message
The point of punative damages is to send a message to others -> “Don’t do this.” But one could argue that a punative award against a child making a claim against a teacher, could discourage other children with legitimate complaints form doing so. A child and his/her welfare is deemed key to society and given a higher priority over an adult.