# How can this be legal? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [March 21, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325 "2006-03-21T19:18:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Aunt\_Flow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed655f/32.png) [@Aunt\_Flow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aunt_Flow)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/1 "2006-03-21T19:18:43Z")
So I was talking with my coworker about how she needs to get a new car and how she should get her parents to cosign for her if she can’t get the loan. She then proceeds to tell me they’re near bankruptcy because of a lawsuit. Apparently a few years ago, her brother and his friend went out on somce scooters. Both were 12 at the time. Well his friend somehow fell off the scooter and basically had his head run over by a truck. Of course he died and her poor brother was pretty traumatized by the whole thing. Her family attended the funeral and the boy’s parents accepted them and sought comfort through them. Well long story short, a short while after that the parents sued her parents for the death. They also sued the truck driver. As well as the person whose house the boys were playing at. And worst of all, she says they’ve included the 12 yr old son (who’s 14 now) in the lawsuit. Why? Because he let his friend ride this scooter which clearly said “16 and above only”. I was a bit flabberghasted. I told her there’s no way they can sue a minor for something like this. And she said they were because apparently the person who sold the scooters to her brother did so in his name. Again, I insisted that he’s a minor and they can’t do that but she says they’ve got it worked out that once he turns 18, they’re going to start garnishing his wages or something. My question is, how can this possibly be legal? To include a minor in such a lawsuit? ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/2 "2006-03-21T19:22:19Z")
> [@Aunt Flow](#): > > My question is, how can this possibly be legal? To include a minor in such a lawsuit? Um, why wouldn’t it be? You can essentially sue anyone, for anything. Doesn’t mean it won’t get laughed out of court. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/3 "2006-03-21T19:40:29Z")
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 17, capacity to be a party in a suit (plaintiff or defendant) is determined in the state of domicile. A majority of states do permit suits by or against minors represented by appointed guardians. ---
**Author:** ![Cillasi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/71e660/32.png) [@Cillasi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cillasi)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/4 "2006-03-21T19:46:44Z")
When trying to sue, you must be sure to include anyone who might have any liability in the case. It does not mean you can recover anything from them. “Blame” is often assigned in proportion to culpability. So, if a store sold an item to an unaccompanied minor (a sale is a contract and minors cannot execute contracts except for necessary items for survival), the store may be liable. If the child’s parents bought him the item, they may be deemed negligent since the item was labeled “for 16 and over” or “not recommended for children under 16.” They may also be held negligent for not supervising their child’s usage of the item, etc., etc. The child would only be held negligent for lending the scooter if it’s found he could have reasonably expected the other child to be injured while riding it. The parents of the child at whose house the children were playing at would be sued for negligence - for improper supervision of minors in their care. The truck driver is obvious. In short, there is a plethora of charges to be lodged against anyone remotely connected with the incident and they all must be named in any law suit, because if any remuneration is to be had, the petitioner wants to be the one to get it. Else, anyone else that might be found liable can themselves turn around and sue anyone else involved for damages. > [@Excalibre](#): > > Um, why wouldn’t it be? You can essentially sue anyone, for anything. Doesn’t mean it won’t get laughed out of court. ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/5 "2006-03-21T19:59:01Z")
Why are your friend’s parents near bankruptcy because of this suit? Is the cost of defending the suit beyond their financial means? I have personal liability insurance on my homeowners policy that covers acts committed by members of my household. It even covers my dogs if they bite someone. The coverage extends beyond my property line, so if I injure someone away from home, I’m covered. It does not, however, cover motor vehicle accidents or criminal acts. Of course, in the death of a child, the insurance may not be enough. What an awful experience. ---
**Author:** ![Aunt\_Flow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ed655f/32.png) [@Aunt\_Flow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aunt_Flow)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/6 "2006-03-21T22:02:44Z")
They’re nearly bankrupt from hiring lawyers and stuff. I don’t know…it just seems wrong to me that they can sue a minor over this. I mean, the poor kid is messed up for life from watching his friend’s head get squished by a truck and then having to see the aftermath. I understand the family is upset that they lost their son, but why screw up some other kid’s life because of it? Why make the rest of his life even harder? It just sickens me. ☹ ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/7 "2006-03-21T22:29:56Z")
It sounds like your information is being garbled after passing through a couple of games of telephone. You probably didn’t understand exactly what your coworker was saying, your coworker probably didn’t understand exactly what her parents were saying, and her parents probably didn’t understand exactly what their lawyer was saying. Or someone along the chain is misrepresenting events on purpose. It’s not even clear from your story whether the lawsuit is still ongoing or whether it’s been settled. I’ll guarantee you that “they’ve got it worked out that once he turns 18, they’re going to start garnishing his wages or something” is not true. I guarantee you that the minor is not being sued, if anyone is being sued it’s his parents. And if the events are even close to what you describe there’s no way that the parents will have a judgement against them. However, it is entirely possible that they have had really large legal bills responding to the lawsuit, that THAT is why they’re going bankrupt, if they are going bankrupt, which isn’t clear. You’ve been told a garbled story, and since there’s no way to determine what actually happened, there’s no way to tell if a miscarriage of justice occured. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/8 "2006-03-21T23:14:58Z")
I’m not a lawyer (nor do I play one on television), but I do have a couple of years of Law School under my belt, and I’ve never heard of a case in any Commonwealth country of a minor successully being sued for anything since the days when discerning Gentlemen wore moustaches, ladies carried parasols, and if you saw a man wearing a skirt, you shot him and nicked his country. 😃😉 To put it another way: If a minor lacks the capacity to be bound by contracts for anything other than necessities (and there’s a GQ thread coming on that very soon- Stay Tuned, Kids!), I can’t see any Judge in any civilised country enforcing a civil judgement against a minor and then making them pay for it once they reach majority. There’s no doubt a case somewhere saying something to the effect of “Minors shall not be held responsible in a civil action for anything they do, but by all means sue their parents if they’re incredibly rich and you think you might win.”, but it would depend on which jurisdiction you’re in, what the judge had for breakfast that morning, and which team beat who at whatever sport is big in your area. 😉 I feel very sorry for your friend’s family… that’s just an awful position to be in, and I really can’t understand suing them. I know you’re supposed to take a “Shotgun” approach when identifying plaintiffs, but I think people get carried away sometimes, ending up with absurdities such as this. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [March 21, 2006, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/9 "2006-03-21T23:56:21Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > It sounds like your information is being garbled after passing through a couple of games of telephone. You probably didn’t understand exactly what your coworker was saying, your coworker probably didn’t understand exactly what her parents were saying, and her parents probably didn’t understand exactly what their lawyer was saying. Or someone along the chain is misrepresenting events on purpose. It’s not even clear from your story whether the lawsuit is still ongoing or whether it’s been settled. So far, I agree with you. You should have stopped here. > [@Lemur866](#): > > I’ll guarantee you that “they’ve got it worked out that once he turns 18, they’re going to start garnishing his wages or something” is not true. I guarantee you that the minor is not being sued, if anyone is being sued it’s his parents. And if the events are even close to what you describe there’s no way that the parents will have a judgement against them. Wrong and wrong. There is no blanket rule that prevents minors from being sued and judgments taken, and such judgments can be enforced, through garnishment and otherwise. And the parents can be sued under some circumstances. See this old thread on this issue, which gives the details: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=325565&highlight=minor](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=325565&highlight=minor) (Note that state laws vary. Also, although IAAL, I’m probably not one in the state at issue. I’m not your lawyer, and you aren’t my client. This is general information, and not reliable legal advice. See a lawyer licensed in your state for that. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/10 "2006-03-22T00:00:05Z")
> [@Martini Enfield](#): > > I’m not a lawyer (nor do I play one on television), but I do have a couple of years of Law School under my belt, and I’ve never heard of a case in any Commonwealth country of a minor successully being sued for anything since the days when discerning Gentlemen wore moustaches, ladies carried parasols, and if you saw a man wearing a skirt, you shot him and nicked his country. 😃😉 > > To put it another way: If a minor lacks the capacity to be bound by contracts for anything other than necessities (and there’s a GQ thread coming on that very soon- Stay Tuned, Kids!), I can’t see any Judge in any civilised country enforcing a civil judgement against a minor and then making them pay for it once they reach majority. > > There’s no doubt a case somewhere saying something to the effect of “Minors shall not be held responsible in a civil action for anything they do, but by all means sue their parents if they’re incredibly rich and you think you might win.”, but it would depend on which jurisdiction you’re in, what the judge had for breakfast that morning, and which team beat who at whatever sport is big in your area. 😉 Not sure about commonwealth countries, but this is not accurate under American law. See thread linked in my last reply. Your point about liability for minor’s contracts is generally true (if a bit too broadly stated), but that has no application here. This appears to be a tort claim, not a contract claim. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/11 "2006-03-22T00:08:40Z")
For convenience, here’s the relevant part of my reply to that thread: > [@Random](#): > > This breaks down into two questions, a point that others have already touched on. First question: Can a minor be liable for a tort? > > Under common law, Illinois followed what’s called the 7 year rule, at least for negligence-type torts. (I think most states did the same.) If the kid is less than 7, he’s irrebutably presumed to be incapable of negligence. There is some authority that if the tort is an intentional tort, even a 6 year old can be liable. > > Between 7 and 14, the presumption still exists, but it is rebuttable. If it can be shown that the kid was capable of understanding the consequences of his act, he can be found to be negligent. Over 14, he’s treated as an adult. Some cases apply an “adult activities” test. If the activity being engaged in is the type normally done by an adult, adult standards apply. > > Okay, that’s nice in theory, but most kids don’t have an assets, so a judgment against them is likely to be pointless, unless the plaintiff can reach the parents, or find some insurance that provides coverage. > > There are four ways that can happen. First, insurance. If he is liable, the kid might be covered under his parent’s homeowner’s or renter’s policy. Also, if the negligent act is automobile-related, there might be an applicable car insurance policy. (Even if it’s the parents’ policy, it might provide coverage to members of the household. Strictly speaking, the existence of such a policy doesn’t mean that the parents are legally liable for the kid’s tort, but from the point of view of the plaintiff and with respect to the parent’s future insurance premiums, there’s not much practical difference.) > > Second, agency. If the kid is liable and he was acting on behalf of the parent or household at the time (say, doing some family shopping, or working for the family business), the parents might be liable on an agency theory. > > Third, negligent entrustment/supervision. If a parent knows his kid is a reckless driver, and hands him the keys to the family car, the parent might be on the hook. Or if the kid is a violent psychopath, and they buy him a gun or big hunting knife for his birthday, they might be liable. But these kinds of theories require some sort of advance knowledge on the part of the parents. Technically, the parent really isn’t being held responsible for the kid’s act - the parent is committing his own tort. > > Fourth, there might be parental responsibilty statute. Illinois has one, but it’s of little practical use, because it’s capped at $2500, and only applies to intentional torts. In the non-Judge Judy world, you don’t file tort claims where your recoverable damages are this small. So, in Illinois, a 12-year-old could be sued for negligence, but in order to win, the plaintiff would need to overcome the presumption that someone less than 14 is incapable of that tort. Same disclaimer. ---
**Author:** ![Martini\_Enfield](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/martini_enfield/32/11123_2.png) [@Martini\_Enfield](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martini_Enfield)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/12 "2006-03-22T00:09:20Z")
> [@Random](#): > > Not sure about commonwealth countries, but this is not accurate under American law. See thread linked in my last reply. Your point about liability for minor’s contracts is generally true (if a bit too broadly stated), but that has no application here. This appears to be a tort claim, not a contract claim. Sorry, I was trying to make a point (rather badly) by analogy. Even so, it strikes me as a bit… not quite cricket, if you will, to allow people to sue kids. Then again, my Torts tutor said one of the Golden Rules of Torts is “Don’t Sue People Who Don’t Have Any Money”, and most kids would fall into that category (except some of those rich kids with cars worth more than some people’s house, but that’s a rant for The Pit, when I get around to it…) ---
**Author:** ![Doctor\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctor_jackson/32/32_2.png) [@Doctor\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doctor_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/13 "2006-03-22T16:27:24Z")
So, let me see if I understand this concept. Let’s say I sue a 12 year old child and prevail. I get awarded a monetary judgement. Since the child has no assets now, do I just keep the judgement active until such time as the child begins to earn money - even if he is 25 by that time? ---
**Author:** ![sweeteviljesus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/898d66/32.png) [@sweeteviljesus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sweeteviljesus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/14 "2006-03-22T16:28:47Z")
The agency thing is interesting. If my child is shopping for the household and gets into a car wreck, I might be held liable? That’s it, I am forming an LLC :). Rob ---
**Author:** ![Lissa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/85f322/32.png) [@Lissa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lissa)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/15 "2006-03-22T16:40:56Z")
> [@sweeteviljesus](#): > > That’s it, I am forming an LLC :). > > Rob My grandfather did, years and years ago. He is ultra-paranoid about being sued. He also put all the attorneys in town on retainer (because he said you can’t be sued by your own attorney.) I think I made him mad when I asked what would happen if a potential plantiff hired an attorney in the neighboring town. ---
**Author:** ![Jacob\_Silj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Jacob\_Silj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jacob_Silj)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2006, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/16 "2006-03-22T22:14:34Z")
Doctor Jackson, what you asked is exactly correct, according to many similar cases on the People’s Court. If Judge Marilyn rules that a minor is culpable, the judgement goes against the minor. It can be paid off, by them, their parents, anyone, before they turn 18. However, it does not have to be. If it isn’t, the case remains open and once the minor turns 18, they are required to make restitution- it is not covered if there is a time limit or what not.No cite, just years of watching in the breakroom during lunch 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/17 "2006-03-23T03:39:03Z")
> [@Doctor Jackson](#): > > So, let me see if I understand this concept. Let’s say I sue a 12 year old child and prevail. I get awarded a monetary judgement. Since the child has no assets now, do I just keep the judgement active until such time as the child begins to earn money - even if he is 25 by that time? Essentially\*, yes. Judgments do expire, on terms that vary from state to state. (In Illinois, they last seven years, but can be renewed up to an overall limit of 20 years.) \*There are some too-complicated-to-go-into-here (i) protections against unfair judgments; and (ii) ways to subsequently challenge a judgment that **may** be available to a minor under applicable state law. If you are interested in reading further, take a look at _American Jurisprudence, 2d_ (a legal encyclopedia usually referred to as Am. Jur., available at any library with a decent legal section), Sections 149-235 (That’s 68 pages, without counting the pocket part, and it involves some technical civil procedure issues so, like I said, it’s too complex to fully describe here.) Previous disclaimer applies. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2006, 3:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-can-this-be-legal/349325/18 "2006-03-23T03:41:26Z")
Also, I should point out that, in many cases, a minor can avoid a judgment by declaring bankruptcy.