claim against child in torts? Forum

[37duncan]

child, lets say 5yrs old, commits intentional tort/negligence while under care of mother
only bring claim against mother for kid's misdeeds?
i don't remember covering any rule/cases that say can't bring claim against kid
I know that kid doesn't have $ so doesn't make sense to bring claim, right?
how should I deal with this in an exam?

Thanks in advance.

[jim]

Sue the kid too. He doesn't have money, but it's done for insurance reasons. (warning: 1L)

[NonTradHealthLaw]

according to the rule of 7s, a 5-year old is legally incapable of negligence

[swilson215]

according to the rule of 7s, a 5-year old is legally incapable of negligence

for negligence purposes, a child would still be liable, but wouldn't be held to the "reasonably prudent person" standard; rather he would be measured against a reasonably prudent child of like age, intelligence, and experience.

[marmot8]

1. For intentional torts, we learned that the majority says kids under 7 can't commit an IT as a matter of law.

2. For negligence, we learned the Rule of Sevens: <7-incapable of committing negligence, 7-14-presumed to be incapable of negligence, >14 capable of negligence.

3. Negligent supervision is hard to prove.

[AreJay711]

1. For intentional torts, we learned that the majority says kids under 7 can't commit an IT as a matter of law.

2. For negligence, we learned the Rule of Sevens: <7-incapable of committing negligence, 7-14-presumed to be incapable of negligence, >14 capable of negligence.

3. Negligent supervision is hard to prove.

See we learned something different. This is just proof that it is all about what the prof. says.

[NonTradHealthLaw]

I believe it's a jx split whether to apply reasonable child or rule of 7s

[swilson215]

See we learned something different. This is just proof that it is all about what the prof. says.

+1.

[Renzo]

Jurisdictions vary. I can't remember for sure, but I think the NY rule is no torts whatsoever against children under seven, but you can sue the parents for negligent supervision.

[cinephile]

You could sue that child under the Massachusetts rule if the kid wasn't acting like a reasonably, prudent 5 year old of like understanding and experience.

[DocHawkeye]

Garratt v. Dailey held that a five-year-old could be held liable for an intentional tort. Section 10 of the Restatement of Torts (Second, I think) states that a child under five years old is not capable of negligence. Otherwise children are capable of negligence if they fail to use the standard of care of a reasonable child of like age and intelligence.

[shock259]

1. For intentional torts, we learned that the majority says kids under 7 can't commit an IT as a matter of law.

2. For negligence, we learned the Rule of Sevens: <7-incapable of committing negligence, 7-14-presumed to be incapable of negligence, >14 capable of negligence.

3. Negligent supervision is hard to prove.

This is what we learned.

[37duncan]

this is really helpful
thanks everyone!