Understanding a parent’s or legal guardian’s possible culpability in Connecticut for a minor’s “willful misbehavior” or carelessness.
Almost every state has some type of “parental responsibility legislation,” which holds parents and/or guardians accountable for injuries or damages caused by their children’s willful activities. In certain states, parental culpability for accidents is also enforced. Depending on the details of the legislation, parents and guardians may be held liable for property damage (including vandalism), personal injury, and theft.
This article will go over some of the most important aspects of Connecticut’s parental responsibility legislation.
Table of Contents
What are the Parental Responsibility Laws in Connecticut?
Connecticut General Statutes section 52-572 contains the state’s parental responsibility legislation. It specifies when parents or guardians may be held financially liable for their children’s actions, as well as the consequences.
Parental Liability in Connecticut for Property Damage and Bodily Injuries Caused by a Child
In Connecticut, a parent or guardian (excluding a temporary guardian) of an unemancipated juvenile is liable if their minor child causes property damage or physical harm to someone.
Willful and malicious harm is defined by Connecticut courts as “inflicted deliberately without good cause or justification.” However, it is not enough “that the conduct resulting in the harm was purposeful in the sense that the individual involved acted voluntarily.” Doody v. Rogers, 119 Conn. 532 (1935).
In Connecticut, parental responsibility for a child’s auto theft exists.
In Connecticut, parents or guardians will be held jointly accountable if their minor kid borrows a motor vehicle without authorization from the owner and causes damage to the vehicle. This implies that the parent/guardian and the underage kid may be held jointly or separately accountable for any damages.
In other words, the property owner may seek compensation from any or all of the liable parties. For the purposes of this regulation, damage does not just refer to physical damage to the vehicle. The legislation defines “damage” as depriving the owner of the use, ownership, or enjoyment of his or her property.
Connecticut’s Financial Limits on Parental Responsibility
The liability of parents/guardians is restricted to $5,000 under Connecticut’s parental responsibility statute (Connecticut Gen. Stat. Section 52-572). It should be noted that this legislation makes parents and guardians liable. It does not exclude unemancipated children from responsibility.
It is also worth noting that Connecticut courts have construed the Act to indicate that the conduct causing the harm, as well as the ensuing injury, must be deliberate. In other words, the juvenile must act willfully to cause the exact damage that ensues, or an injury that is very expected to occur as a consequence of the child’s activities. As a result, a Connecticut court found that when a youngster stole an automobile and carelessly drove it, there was no viable allegation that the minor knowingly and maliciously damaged the vehicle owner.
Common Law may still hold Connecticut parents liable.
Even if Connecticut’s parental responsibility rules do not apply, parents may be held financially liable for their children’s activities.
Parental responsibility laws often emphasize particular remedies for specific behaviors. However, the Restatement of Torts provides further guidance (a “secondary” source which is often looked to as authority by courts when no specific state law applies to a given situation).
According to Section 316 of the Restatement (Second), “a parent has a duty to exercise reasonable care so as to control his minor child in order to prevent it from intentionally harming others or from conducting itself in such a way as to create an unreasonable risk of bodily harm to them, if the parent (a) knows or has reason to know that he has the ability to control his child, and (b) knows of or should know of the necessity and opportunity to exercise such control.” In other words, parents who are aware that their kid has a proclivity to behave recklessly or negligently may be obliged to take reasonable precautions to keep the child from causing foreseeable injury to others.
Assume a parent is aware that their kid is a distracted driver because he or she constantly chats or texts on the phone while driving. Despite this information, the parent lets his or her kid drive a car. If the youngster causes an accident while chatting or texting on the phone, the parent may be held liable for permitting the child to drive.