I’m having a “discussion” with someone on another board on the topic of filing a lawsuit against a minor. Can an adult sue a minor, or must they explicitly sue the minor’s parents or guardian? Is a Guardian ad Litem appointed in any lawsuit naming a minor as a defendent, or only a minor with no legal guardian?
I realize that the answer may vary by jurisdiction, but how do things work in general? A cite that I can link to would be greatly appreciated.
A minor can be sued. No cite (no time), but you may have heard of the Glenbrook High School hazing incident that took place in suburban Chicago earlier this year. (It got a fair amount of national press.)
There are civil cases pending against the minor/perpetrators.
FWIW, IAAL.
Very dependent on jurisdiction. I believe that originally at common law a minor couldn’t be sued (tho’ don’t quote me on that); some jurisdictions have modified this rule, others haven’t. Also, infancy (which in legal terms refers to any minor) is a defense to certain causes of action in many jurisdictions. If your interest is more than purely academic you need to consult an attorney familiar with the law of your jurisdiction, because the legal responsibilities of minors is one of the most variable across jurisdictional grounds.
–Cliffy
Although I concede that they are closely-related concepts, I think that this response largely addresses a different issue. Broadly speaking, civil lawsuits can be broken down into breach of contract claims and torts.
I completely agree with Cliffy’s point that, generally speaking, minors don’t have the capacity to enter into a valid contract. I also agree that many jurisdictions have softened this rule. Emancipated minors can contract in some places. Other states recognize contracts for necessities (food, clothing). Unless one of these exceptions apply, though, a minor who is sued for breach of contract has a defense. But that doesn’t mean the minor can’t be sued. To illustrate the difference, let’s say a minor enters into finance agreement in connection with a big screen TV purchase. That contract may be voidable by the minor. If he’s sued, he elects to void the contract and pleads that election as a defense. He can do this even if he is now 20 years old, as long as he was 17 when the contract was signed. (I’m ignoring ratification and similar issues.) On the other hand, if the minor wants to keep the TV, he doesn’t raise the defense and the suit continues, even if he’s still 17.
I’m not aware of any similar defense to tort claims. If a 16 year old runs a red light and hits my parked car, I can sue him and his minority is not an issue.
I’m in Illinois. It’s possible another state has different rules. I’ve never heard of such a state, though.
I’m sure state laws differ, but IIRC in Illinois a minor has a certain time limit after reaching majority to avoid the contract. And IIRC that time limit in Illinois is two years.
Thanks for all the information. This helped clear a few things up. Of course, it raised a few new questions, too, but I can probably do the research on that myself. This thread has given me a good place to start.
Cliffy, my interest is purely academic. I’m lucky enough to have never been on either side of a lawsuit, and I’m hoping I can stay that way.
Random, thanks for the clarification of tort versus contracts. I was aware that minors normally couldn’t enter into contracts, but I wasn’t sure if that type of immunity extended to other types of lawsuits.
There is a case well known to law students- a 5 or 6 year old boy pulled a chair out from under an elderly lady as she was sitting down. The courts held he could be sued- the standard for "intent’ was quite low. It is very hard to prove “criminal intent” in most kids under 11-12, OTOH.
Random, at common law minors were typically immune from tort claims sounding in negligence; however, if they were engaged in adult-like acts (such as driving), they could be sued as adults. The general thinking (viewed from a modern standpoint) seemed to be that children should not be required to “do the math” on negligence (such as under the Hand formula) because they weren’t sophisticated enough mentally, but if they were participating in adult activities, 1) they had voluntarily “signed on” as temporary adults and 2) the other participants in the activity who might be injured (such as other drivers) would reasonably assume that they were participating with adults and therefore would reasonably take precaution under that assumption and not the greater care they might take if they knew there were kids about.
I think that, as in the land of contract, the infancy defense is eroding generally in tort, but I haven’t done a survey.
Note that the case doctordoowop mentions was an intentional tort, not on sounding in negligence, where the infancy defense did not apply.
–Cliffy