Top Law Schools

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.

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

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

NonTradHealthLaw wrote: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.

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.

marmot8 wrote: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.

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

AreJay711 wrote:
See we learned something different. This is just proof that it is all about what the prof. says.

+1.

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.

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.

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.

marmot8 wrote: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.

this is really helpful
thanks everyone!