| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Firearcher
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:08 am Post subject: Legal Questions |
 |
|
Here is my question: Who is responsible? Parents of boy or girls or 50/50%.
A 9 year old boy and girl are playing out side. They are running around. The boy is chasing the girl. The girl's father has his car parked in his driveway. The girl runs into her yard and grabs onto the mirror of the car holding it with her hands. Then the boy grabs the girl pulls on her hard and the mirror comes off the car causing $500 damage. The girl actually pulled off the mirror - not the boy. However but not for the actions of the boy the damage would not have occurred. The boy was on the girl's father's property. Who is responsible?
Example #2 3 people are in a room. There is a gun in the room. A tells B to bring him the gun. A informs B that the gun is not loaded. B picks up the gun carelessly and the gun fires shooting Person C on the other side of the room. The gun was loaded after all. Who is responsible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
1927
Joined: 02 Oct 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
In which country/ province/ state do these incidents occur?
Laws vary from place to place. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAZZYJJJ
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:03 am Post subject: Re: Legal Questions |
|
|
| Firearcher wrote: |
Here is my question: Who is responsible? Parents of boy or girls or 50/50%.
A 9 year old boy and girl are playing out side. They are running around. The boy is chasing the girl. The girl's father has his car parked in his driveway. The girl runs into her yard and grabs onto the mirror of the car holding it with her hands. Then the boy grabs the girl pulls on her hard and the mirror comes off the car causing $500 damage. The girl actually pulled off the mirror - not the boy. However but not for the actions of the boy the damage would not have occurred. The boy was on the girl's father's property. Who is responsible?
Example #2 3 people are in a room. There is a gun in the room. A tells B to bring him the gun. A informs B that the gun is not loaded. B picks up the gun carelessly and the gun fires shooting Person C on the other side of the room. The gun was loaded after all. Who is responsible? |
Spoken like a true judge.
First scenario sounds like a tort. Too young for criminal damage, etc. From memory, parents are not liable for the actions of their children, dependent on the child's age. Likewise trespass. You'd think a decent outcome would be a 50/50 split, though neither is liable per se. As it is the girl's father's car he is responsible for the damage (semantics).
Example #2: B is responsible/liable. Assuming B is of sound mind, an adult, etc, B would get pinged on grounds of 'reasonableness' ie a reasonable person would handle a gun with due care regardless of it being loaded/unloaded AND a reasonable person would check if it is loaded/unloaded.
A lot of this would also depend on where the actions occurred, and if it is a criminal action or a tort.
My 2 cents. I am sure others will disagree (1st year law was a while ago).
J. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firearcher
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi and thank for your opinion.
I have asked these 2 questions for a reason and had hoped to garner more and varying opinions on the matter.
Regarding scenario #1 I think parents are responsible for the actions of their children. If my dog went into your yard and ruined your garden, your crops, scratched your car etc I would be liable for that damage. So why would the law also not extend to minor children in your care? In my view it should. Parents are on the hook for what their children do - UNLESS their children can be held accountable under the law. (IE: Murder) The victim in any case is not responsible for the damages.
IMO the parents of the boy in the illustration above are responsible because he was on the property of the damage sufferer (the car owner) and it was his actions that resulted in the damage.
If anyone wants to agree / disagree have at it. I'm curious. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JAZZYJJJ
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Firearcher wrote: |
| I think parents are responsible for the actions of their children. |
No they aren't (not at least where I am). They have a duty to control them to prevent them causing harm to others. Have the boy's parents met this duty? Hard to say in your scenario. What if the girl's parents were babysitting? Would that change your opinion?
| Quote: |
| If my dog went into your yard and ruined your garden, your crops, scratched your car etc I would be liable for that damage. |
Not necessarily. What if a hole in a fence maintained by you allowed my dog access? Anyway, animals differ from children as they are a chattel (property). At law, you are expected to maintain control of your property. Does that standard differ to that involving control of minors? I believe so.
| Quote: |
| The victim in any case is not responsible for the damages. |
This is at odds with the notion of contributory negligence.
Not saying you are wrong, but you are trying to see things as black and white/right and wrong. In my experience, the application of law, especially torts, is anything but. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 3:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Firearcher wrote: |
Hi and thank for your opinion.
I have asked these 2 questions for a reason and had hoped to garner more and varying opinions on the matter.
Regarding scenario #1 I think parents are responsible for the actions of their children. If my dog went into your yard and ruined your garden, your crops, scratched your car etc I would be liable for that damage. |
That's a silly analogy. A dog is property while a child is not. Moreover, you're responsible to have your dog on a leash at all times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Firearcher
Joined: 22 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:17 am Post subject: Damages |
|
|
Most if not all comments seem to disagree with my interpretation of the law. Which is fine. Just pointing that out. Its somewhat perplexing.
If my child went over to your house and drew in colored marker all over the siding of your house.........true story here...... ......you are all telling me that the owner of the damaged house simply has to suck it up and the parents of the offending child are not responsible?
I disagree. While a dog is property and a child is not parents are "responsible" for the damages caused by both, unless it was an unreasonable situation.
For example if you dangle a T bone steak in my dogs face and he races over and eats it and damages your property in the process I would say you caused the damage by waving the steak.....
But if the dog went over all on its own "just because" and caused damage the dog owner is responsible. Dogs should be on a leash and parents should know where their small children are at all times despite the fact most of us do not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
12ax7
Joined: 07 Nov 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Still a silly analogy and you're screwed if your dog wasn't on a leash. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
