I was told that one cannot sue the parents of a legal infant (under 18) for the child’s actions. Parents, under traditional anglo-american law at least, are not automatically liable for their children’s actions.
But then I heard that the parents of the two columbine killers in fact were sued up the wazoo and their homeowner’s insurance policy had to pay out big moolah.
So, why did that happen? Why does having a child who commits a crime mean you are liable? Did the common law change? Was an exception made for this case somehow?
The parents of the victims sued the parents of the killers. They also sued the manufacturers of video games that the killers played. They may have sued other parties too. I can’t find any mention of what lawsuits were dismissed or settled and what the outcome of those suits that came to court were.
"Most of the families of the victims in the Columbine massacre two years ago today settled their lawsuits against the parents of the gunmen.
Thirty of the 36 families whose relatives were either killed or injured by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in the April 20, 1999, school shooting agreed to participate in a settlement for a total of $1.56 million, according to Stephen Wahlberg, who led the families’ attorneys in the case. "
From Columbine by Dave Cullen (2009). He was interviewed on Book TV (C-Span). What I don’t get it how the parents were sued, and if so, why they paid out? You are not liable just because your offspring commits a tort, no matter how vile the tort is.
But if you let your offspring use your house to store an arsenal of illegal weapons (it is illegal for an infant to own these weapons) and give them resources to plan their torts, it could be a different story.
Right. Parents are not liable per se for the acts of their children, but if they were negligent in some aspect as to their acts they can be liable. They can be negligent in control of the children, negligent in their parental duties, etc.
“infants” was the traditional common law term for anyone under the age of majority. It’s been replaced in most jurisdictions with “minors” but I suppose it may still be used in some.
Correct. I don’t know the details of the Columbine suit, but negligent supervision of a child is a tort when said negligent supervision leads to harm. Certainly allowing your home garage to be a pipe bomb factory would qualify in this case, and I generally hate these causes of action..