Story Case

George Miller, twelve years old, maliciously destroyed a number of flower plants on the property of Edward Nobel. The boy was living with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. John Miller and under their control. Nobel demanded of the parents that they pay for the damages committed by their son. The parents refused on the ground that they were not liable in damages for the losses suffered. Thereupon Nobel brought suit against both of the parents to recover for the losses caused by the acts of their son. Can he compel them to pay?

Ruling Court Case. Paul Vs. Hummel, Volume 43 Missouri Reports, Page 119; Volume 97 American Decisions, Page 381

This was an action for damages for injury to the plaintiff's minor son aged six years, received at the hands of the defendant's minor son, aged eleven years, who resided with and was under the control of the defendant, its father.

Mr. Justice Wagner delivered the opinion of the Court: "A parent cannot be held liable for the wilful trespasses and torts of his infant children, when he neither assents to nor ratifies them. When the minor has committed a tort with force, he is liable at any age to be proceeded against as an adult. I know of no principle of law by which the action is maintainable. There is no such relation existing between parent and son, though the son be living with his father as a member of his family, as will make the acts of the son more binding upon the father than the acts of any other person. The father is not liable for the contracts of the son, within age, except they be for necessaries, and it would be a great departure from the law to hold him responsible for the son's trespasses and wrongs."

Therefore judgment was given for the defendant.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

Upon the father is imposed by law the duty to support his children during their minority but the law does not demand that the father shall answer for the civil wrongs of his children. The relationship between parent and child is not such that the father is liable in this respect. The child himself is liable for damages which follow from his wrongful acts. If the father directs the child in the commission of a civil wrong, the parent becomes a wrong-doer just as he would have been had the relationship of parent and child not existed. He is no more and no less liable than he would have been had the person whom he directed been an entire stranger to him.

In the Story Case, the parents of George Miller cannot be made liable for the loss of the flower plants simply because of the relation of parent and child. Parents are never liable in this manner for the wrongs of their children, unless they have helped in the wrong. Then they are liable as joint wrong-doers.