Under California tort law, parents have a duty to supervise and control their children. (Williams v. Garcetti (1993) 5 Cal.4th 561, 571-572, fn.7; see also Costello v. Hart (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 898, 899-901, finding duty and reversing nonsuit in favor of defendant grandmother where her four year old grandson ran out from underneath a clothes rack in a store and tripped plaintiff; Ellis v. D'Angelo (1953) 116 Cal. App. 2d 310, 312, 317, 320, finding complaint stated cause of action for negligence where it was alleged that: (1) that four-year-old child shoved and pushed the plaintiff "violently to the floor" and (2) defendant parents knew that child habitually engaged in violent conduct and failed to warn plaintiff, who had been hired to act as a babysitter).
However, there must be the manifestation of specific dangerous tendencies to trigger a parental duty to exercise reasonable care to control the minor child in order to prevent harm to third persons. (Hoff v. Vacaville Unified School District (1998) 19 Cal.4th 925, 934-935.) This duty is based on section 316 in the Second Restatement of Torts, which states:
“A parent is under a duty to exercise reasonable care so to control his minor child as to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from so conducting itself as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent
“1. A is informed that his six-year-old child is shooting at a target in the street with a .22 rifle, in a manner which endangers the safety of those using the street. A fails to take the rifle away from the child, or to take any other action. The child unintentionally shoots B, a pedestrian, in the leg. A is subject to liability to B.”
Section 1714.1(a) states that any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury or death to another person shall be imputed to the parent for all purposes of civil damages, and the parent shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct. As noted above, California common law holds parents responsible for harm caused by their children only when it has been shown that the parents, as reasonable persons, previously became aware of habits or tendencies of the child which made it likely that the child would misbehave. (Reid v. Lund (1971) 18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 702) Section 1714.1, by making parents financially liable for the conduct of a minor, is in derogation of the common law and, accordingly, should be strictly construed. (Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal. App. 3d 1040, 1046.)
As originally enacted, parental liability statutes were intended to make parents legally responsible for the tortious acts of their minor children and were generally aimed at acts of juvenile delinquency, vandalism and malicious mischief. (Id. at 1044.) For example, the original version of section 1714.1 enacted in 1955 was limited to property damage. (Id.) The statute was amended 10 years later to make parents liable for personal injuries as well as property damage willfully caused by their children and to increase the maximum liability to $500. (Id.) Subsequent amendments increased the maximum liability, added a section dealing with defacement of property, extended liability to guardians as well as parents, and restricted liability to parents and guardians who have custody and control of the minor. (Id.) The 1983 amendment also included the following language:
“This act is part of the Crime Victim Restitution Program of 1983 in that it increases the ability of victims of juvenile crime to obtain restitution by doubling parental liability for crimes committed by minors.” (Id.)
“While it is the rule in California . . . that there is no vicarious liability on a parent for the torts of a child there is ‘another rule of the law relating to the torts of minors, which is somewhat in the nature of an exception, and that is that a parent may become liable for an injury caused by the child where the parent’s negligence made it possible for the child to cause the injury complained of, and probable that it would do so.’” (Ellis v. D’Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 317.) Specifically, parents can be liable for their minor child’s torts if they knew or had reason to know (typically, from past conduct) that it was necessary to control and supervise the child to prevent future harm to others and they failed to exercise reasonable care to do so. (See, e.g., Singer v. Marx (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 637, 646, holding that evidence of the mother’s knowledge of her child’s prior habit of rock throwing was sufficient to present a jury issue as to her negligence, but evidence was insufficient as to the father who had no personal knowledge of prior rock throwing).
To prevail on a claim for parental liability for negligent supervision, Plaintiff must establish:
CACI No. 428.
Mercury Casualty Co. v. Maclean 56-2012-00419009 Re: Motion by Plaintiff Mercury Casualty Co. for Summary Judgment in its Declaratory Relief Action Against MacClean Deny Plaintiff Mercury Casualty Co.'s motion for Summary Judgment in its declaratory relief action Against MacClean et. al. 1.Mercury has only sought "summary judgment," not adjudication, re its duty to defend Maclean etc. al. under...
..ted and no. 6 is established that is what the first amended Lira complaint alleges). 3. Mercury's MSJ is focused on the intentional tort causes of action alone (tortious aiding and abetting and imputed liability for acts of a minor). The motion ignores Lira's causes of action for negligence and negligent supervision. Those causes of action allege that Defendant Kyler Speed and his parents had a d...
Apr 15, 2013
Ventura County, CA
Case Number: BC562719 Hearing Date: November 04, 2016 Dept: A Y.H. v Glendale USD MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Calendar: 1 Case No: BC562719 Date: 11/4/16 MP: Cross-Defendant, Stacy Parks RP: Cross-Complainant, Glendale Unified School District RELIEF REQUESTED: Summary judgment of Cross-Complaint or summary adjudication of each cause of action. ALLEGATIONS IN CROSS-COMPLAINT: In the Complaint,...
..avior from television or movies that he watched with Stacy Parks or while she was present. The Glendale Unified School District seeks indemnity and declaratory relief regarding Stacy Parks’ liability for the Plaintiff’s injuries. Further, the District seeks damages for the costs it incurred as a result of Stacy Parks’ negligent supervision of her son. CAUSES OF ACTION IN CROSS-COMPLAINT: 1) Impli...
Nov 04, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
michael martinez, a minor, by and through his guardian ad litem, Sophia Mendoza ; Plaintiff, vs. KIAN SHAHRIARY , et al.; Defendants. Case No.: BC638884 Hearing Date: June 6, 2017 Time: 1:30 p.m. [Tentative] Order RE: demurrer Defendants Vahid Shahriary and Rebecca Shahriary’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint Background On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff Michael Martinez (“Plain...
..on October 28, 2014, Defendant Kian Shahriary (“Kian”) intentionally shot Plaintiff with a non-powder gun, causing him injuries. (FAC ¶ 14.) Plaintiff also alleges that his injuries were caused by Defendants Vahid and Rebecca Shahriary’s negligent supervision of Kian, who was a minor. (FAC ¶ 24.) On April 19, 2017, the Shahriarys filed a demurrer to Plaintiff’s FAC. The court has considered t...
Jun 06, 2017
Los Angeles County, CA
The Demurrer brought by defendant Melissa DeLeon ("Mother" or "Melissa") to the First Amended Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. The Demurrer brought by defendants Richard and Sheri Perlman (the "Perlmans" or "Perlman Defendants") is disposed as follows: 4. Violation of Civ. Code § 43-SUSTAINED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 5. Violation of Civil Code § 1714(d)(1), Bus. & Prof. Code § 25602, and...
..San Diego, Local Rule 2.1.19.) Defendant Melissa did so, but the Perlman Defendants did not. The Perlman Defendants are admonished for failing to obtain a hearing date from the Calendar Clerk, as the failure to do so impacts the Court's ability to monitor and assess its workflow. Nevertheless, the Court exercises its discretion to consider both demurrers at today's hearing. Demurrer to Fourth Ca...
Jul 12, 2018
Personal Injury/ Tort
San Diego County, CA
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT ROCHELLE STERN PATTON, Plaintiff(s), vs. PETCO ANIMAL SUPPLIES, INC., ET AL., Defendant(s). CASE NO: BC671083 [TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Dept. 3 1:30 p.m. March 27, 2019 Background Facts Plaintiff, Rochelle Stern Patton filed this action against Defendant, Petco Animal Su...
..of action is alleged against Does 26-50. On 8/18/17, Plaintiff added Jennifer Enani as Doe 27. On 9/05/17, Petco filed an answer to the complaint. On 10/10/17, Enani filed an answer to the complaint. Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication At this time, Enani moves for summary judgment on the complaint. Enani is the mother of the child who left the scooter on the floor in Petco. Burdens on Su...
Mar 27, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
The Demurrer by Marco Young to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. The Motion to Strike is DENIED. The Demurrer by Maria and David Feifel to the First Amended Complaint is OVERRULED. Marco Young Plaintiff alleges causes of action for assault and battery against Defendant. The First Amended Complaint alleges that while he was attending an event, he was singled out and attacked by a gang of...
..by the other individuals, Plaintiff was in the front seat of his vehicle and attempting to leave the scene of the incident. (FAC, p. 5, para. 29.) Defendant Young then stopped Plaintiff from leaving, and caused him further physical and emotional injuries. (Ibid.) Defendant Young jumped on Plaintiff's vehicle and began kicking in the windshield at him. (FAC, p. 5, para. 29.) Defendant Young then ca...
Sep 26, 2017
Personal Injury/ Tort
San Diego County, CA
76-100 of 10000 results
Jul 06, 2015
Non, Fast Track
Kern County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.