South Carolina Parental Responsibility Statutes

Understanding a parent’s or legal guardian’s possible culpability in South Carolina for a minor’s “willful wrongdoing” or carelessness.

South Carolina, like practically every other state, has implemented a “parental responsibility legislation.” These are civil laws that may be used to financially hold a parent or legal guardian liable for certain accidents or losses caused by their underage children. Often, the kid must behave knowingly or maliciously in order for parental culpability to be triggered. However, a few jurisdictions also impose parental culpability for accidents.

This article will go through some of the particular restrictions outlined in South Carolina’s parental responsibility statute, which may be found in South Carolina Code Ann. § 63-5-60.
South Carolina Parental Liability for Property Damage and Injury

In South Carolina, if a juvenile causes physical harm or property damage (including theft), the youngster’s parents will be held liable. This “maliciously or deliberately” criterion is a high one, implying that the minor must act with purpose and/or malice. So, if a kid is just reckless and causes an accident in which someone is harmed or property is destroyed, South Carolina law does not hold a parent accountable.

It makes no difference whether the victim of a minor’s acts is a human or a kind of business (that includes a company, a municipality, a religious organization, etc.). If the minor’s behavior was malicious or intentional and constituted the legal cause of the subsequent injury, all types of claimants are entitled to recover their losses from the minor’s parents.

South Carolina’s Financial Limits on Parental Liability

A parent’s financial culpability under South Carolina’s parental responsibility statute is restricted to $5,000. For example, if a kid wilfully ruins someone else’s house and the repairs cost $6,000, the homeowner will be restricted to recovering $5,000 from the child’s parents.

There is a restriction on the amount of recovery as well as the sort of damages that may be recovered. Victims may only seek “actual damages” under South Carolina Code Ann. § 63-5-60. In the case of property damage, this is the cost of repairing or replacing the destroyed property. This would be the expense of medical treatment to treat the victim’s injuries (up to the $5,000 maximum) for physical injuries. “Actual damages” exclude non-economic losses such as pain and suffering.

Parents and minors are jointly and severally liable.

Section 63-5-60 holds minors and their parents jointly and severally accountable if the minor would have been responsible for the damage or harm if he or she had been an adult. “Joint and several” is a legal term that means claimants have two recovery options: they can recover their damages collectively against the parent and minor, or they can collect all of their damages individually from the parent or the child (with the $5,000 cap still in place for the parent’s liability).

Parental Responsibility Law in South Carolina Increases Liability

Section 63-5-60 of the South Carolina Code Ann. does not absolve a minor’s obligation and transfers it totally to the parents. Minors continue to have legal responsibility for the consequences of their acts. Furthermore, if the minor’s activities would result in a finding of culpability under another law, section 63-5-60 has no bearing on such a judgment. In other words, section 63-5-60 imposes responsibility in addition to, rather than instead of, liability imposed by other South Carolina legislation.

A Word About Governmental Custody

People who have custody of a kid under the jurisdiction of a state agency or a county social services department are exempt from Section 63-5-60. It also does not apply to state or county social service offices that have legal custody of a youngster.

Parents in South Carolina may still be liable under common law.

Even if section 63-5-60 does not apply, South Carolina parents may be held liable for their children’s acts under a non-statutory, conventional system of legal norms known as “common law.”

Assume a parent is aware that his or her kid is a distracted driver who constantly chats or texts on the phone while driving. Despite this information, the parent lets the youngster drive a car with no limitations. If the kid causes an accident while chatting or texting on the phone, the parent may be held liable for permitting the child to drive and failing to avoid foreseeable injury to others based on the child’s known “dangerous proclivities.”