Parents or guardians are not automatically liable for injuries caused by their children—contrary to popular misconception—which means insurance covering a parent or guardian’s home or auto will not always cover personal injury claims. The issue of liability of minors is more complicated, and depends on various factors such as the age and maturity of the child and whether the child is engage in inherently dangerous activities. Here is a quick summary.
Age of child.
If a child injuries another person, the child’s conduct is measured by the conduct of a reasonably careful child of the same age, intelligence, maturity, training, and experience.[1] A child is not measured by the same standard of conduct as an adult, because a child lacks the judgment, discretion, and experience of an adult.[2]
A child under age cannot be contributory negligent. This means children under six cannot be held partly at fault for their own injury. An injured person six years or older can be held to be partly at fault for their own injury, which reduces the amount of the injury claim by the percentage of self-fault.[3] An older teenager of normal capacity may be held to an adult standard of care.[4]
A person injured by a child’s conduct may hold a parent liable for negligent supervision only children if (1) the child has a dangerous proclivity; (2) the parents know, or should have known, of the child’s dangerous proclivity; and (3) they fail to exercise reasonable care in controlling that proclivity.[5]
A Washington statute makes parents liable for intentional wrongful acts of children, but limits the liability to $5,000.[6]
Family Car Doctrine.
The lower standard of care for the conduct of minors does not apply when the child engages in an inherently dangerous activity, such as driving a car.[7] A car owner may be liable under the family car doctrine for negligent conduct of a family member or third person who uses the car with the owner’s permission.[8]
To establish a case based on the family car doctrine, the plaintiff must establish (1) that the car is owned, provided or maintained by the parent (2) for the customary conveyance of family members and other family business (3) and at the time of the accident the car was driven by a member of the family for whom the car is maintained, and (4) with the express or implied consent of the parent.[9]
Whether the parents or the parents’ insurance are responsible for injuries caused by a minor driver depends on whether the family car doctrine applies to the particular facts. For instance, the family car doctrine may not apply if the car use was beyond the scope of agency granted by the car owner, or if the parents neither own nor control the vehicle.[10]
[1] Bauman by Chapman v. Crawford, 104 Wash. 2d 241, 704 P.2d 1181 (1985) (child bicyclist would be negligent in failing to obey statutory standard if child of similar age, intelligence, maturity and experience would have behaved differently).
[2] Bauman by Chapman.
[3] Price v. Kitsap Transit, 125 Wn.2d 456, 886 P.2d 556 (1994); RCW 4.22.070(1).
[4] Bauman by Chapman; Dingwall v. McKerricher, 75 Wash. 2d 352, 450 P.2d 947 (1969)(17-year-old pedestrian was old enough to appreciate peril).
[5] Barrett v. Pacheco, 62 Wn. App. 717, 722, 815 P.2d 834 (1991).
[6] RCW 4.24.190.
[7] Robinson v. Lindsay, 92 Wash. 2d 410, 598 P.2d 392 (1979).
[8] Cameron v. Downs, 32 Wash. App. 875, 650 P.2d 260 (1982).
[9] Kaynor v. Farline, 117 Wash. App. 575, 72 P.3d 262 (2003); Cameron v. Downs, 32 Wash. App. 875, 650 P.2d 260 (1982).
[10] Hulse v. Driver, 11 Wash. App. 509, 524 P.2d 255 (1974); Schnebly v. Bryson, 158 Wash. 250, 290 P. 849 (1930) Wise v. Truck Ins. Exchange, 11 Wash. App. 405, 523 P.2d 431 (1974).