When I became plenary guardian of my adult daughter over a decade ago, the lawyer who handled the petition assured me that I would be taking no personal financial risks since I would not be personally liable for her actions. I have also found numerous lawyer’s web sites which repeat this.
My daughter damaged someone’s property while in the community and accompanied by staff from her group home. The owner of the property tried to sue the group home, but that was dismissed presumably because the group home did everything the were authorized to do to handle the situation. The owner of the property is now suing me (the suit is <$5k in magisterial court, no attorney for the plaintiff).
Is the concept of a guardian’s immunity from third-party actions stemming from actions of their adult ward a matter of statute, a matter of case law, or somehow derived from common law? Asking specifically about Pennsylvania. I’ve searched PA statutes with no luck. Anybody with experience in guardianship or disability law have any suggestions?
This is way outside my area of expertise but it seems to be an old common law principle that can be modified by statute. I am finding citations in other states to the common law principle that the claim must be against the ward and not the guardian. See, e.g., Lawton v. Fox, 47 RI 359 (May 27, 1926) (citing Arnold v. Angell, 1 RI 289 (1850)).
I’m not finding cases specifically from Pennsylvania but if you want a real opinion, this is definitely time to find a good lawyer licensed in Pennsylvania. The lawyer who handled your petition might be a good start. Good luck.
I’m not your lawyer, and have no knowledge of PA law.
Are you sure it’s “immunity”? Because typically, if it’s a tort claim, the claim has to be against the tortfeasor. So, what is the allegation of your negligence? If it’s an intentional tort, what are they saying you did?
There is usually not a concept that the guardian is responsible for the ward’s acts. It would be the plaintiff, I think, who has to plead how you are the one responsible.
So they need to cite a doctrine or law for why you are responsible for another’s acts.
Thanks everyone for the replies. Let me clarify things a bit:
The plaintiff is filing on his own without an attorney (an attorney is not required in Magisterial Court). A one paragraph complaint with an attached police report of the incident and an estimate for repairs. Complaint is hand written onto a “Civil Complaint” form.
The complaint was originally filed against the organization that operated the group home where my daughter lives. The judge dismissed that complaint (the organization was not negligent since they were following the state regulations and my daughter’s individualized service plan). The plaintiff crossed out the organizations name and substituted my name without any other changes.
The complaint is factually incorrect, it says that “The defendant witnessed and is responsible for damage” when I was actually 2500 miles away at the time of the incident.
I spoke with one of the court clerks and was advised to write a letter to the judge explaining the circumstances to see if the judge will dismiss the case without me having to travel for the hearing.
Is this a generally known legal principle? I am assuming that the plaintiff is assuming that the guardian of an adult would have the same liability as the parent of a minor. If he had gone to an attorney would he have likely been advised of this?
More importantly, should a judge know this principle? I was hoping to find a PA statute that spells it out to cite in my letter to the judge. I am concerned that the judge does not understand, since I was told by someone from the group home that the judge suggested to the plaintiff that he should file against the guardian after he dismissed the case against the group home.
A pithy summary comes from American Jurisprudence, Second Edition:
The guardian of a mentally incapacitated person is not arbitrarily liable for the torts of such ward because of his or her relation as guardian. Any liability attaching to the guardian is predicated on his or her negligence in permitting or making possible the commission of the tort by the ward.
39 Am. Jur. 2d Guardian and Ward Sec. 183 (internal citations omitted).
The defendant should make sure in the politest but most thorough way possible that the judge knows. If the judge recommended that the plaintiff take action against me, I would get a lawyer to explain this principle to the judge on my behalf.
Generally, parents of minors are not responsible for the minor’s torts, either. There would have to be a statute in your state making them liable. Parents, or guardians, can be sued for their own negligent acts, such as negligent supervision, if that applies in the circumstances.
My point was that it’s the plaintiff who would have to connect the dots between the ward’s acts and you.
For example, there’s a doctrine called respondeat superior which makes an employer responsible for the negligent acts of their employee, if done on behalf of the employer. That doctrine exists as an exception to the general rule that a person is not liable for the torts of another. The plaintiff would need to find some positive law that makes you liable for the acts of another – your ward.
The quote from Am. Jur. 2d should help make that point. And presumably there is no such statute or doctrine in PA, based on what you’ve learned from your lawyer and your research.
it really isn’t. It’s just a commentary. It is not binding on anyone, least of all a judge that thinks differently. You need citations that are binding on the judge or at the very least persuasive to him or her. The one I gave you is not a particularly persuasive cite, even if it is better than nothing. Please talk to a lawyer in your jurisdiction. Good luck.
You did nothing to facilitate, encourage, or enable yourdaughter to damage, deface, or destroy the Plantiff’s property.
You, acting as your daughter’s guardian, had contracted with the group home for her care and with the understanding she would always be under their supervision.
If a previous judge found that the group home was not liable for damages, you are a degree further than the group home in responsibility. By association, you cannot be liable, either.
The Plantiff is obviously pissed. He has suffered damages, and dammit, he wants somebody to PAY.
I suggest he turn the entire mess over to his Homeowner’s Insurance. He pays the premiums so the insurance company will handle such events.
Insurance companies are very, very well-versed in the law and who is responsible.
My guess is that the Plaintiff does not have comprehensive coverage for his 18 year old Mercedes C240. What he is asking for is more than the private sale book value of the car.
I have written a letter to the judge per the recommendation of the court clerk. I’ll keep everyone posted.
The judge did indeed rule that we were not liable. Unfortunately, she could (would) not rule based on our letter since rulings can only be made in court. We had to fly out an appear in person. Both Mrs. Martian and myself had to attend, I could not act on both of our behalves. We filed a counter suit for travel expenses based on a frivolous lawsuit hoping that would cause the plaintiff to drop the case, but they went forward and we did not win travel expenses.
I had enough frequent flier miles to cover the flights so we weren’t out of pocket that much, and we made the best of it be stopping for a few days in New Orleans en route back home.
By the same token, Umbrella policies on top of homeowners policies are usually suggested for similar reasons, they should provide for attorney fees when sued in a situation like this.