Dave is a six-year old boy who has a well-deserved reputation for bullying
younger and smaller children. His parents have encouraged him to be
aggressive and tough. Dave, for no reason, knocked down, kicked and severely
injured Pete, a four-year old. A claim for relief has been asserted by
Pete's parents for their medical and hospital costs and for Pete's injuries.
If the claim is asserted against Dave, the most likely result is Dave will
be

A. liable, because he intentionally harmed Pete.
B. liable, because, as a six-year-old, he should have known his
conduct was wrongful.
C. not liable, because a child under seven is not liable in
tort.
D. not liable, because he is presumed to be under his parents'
control and they have the sole responsibility.

Batata,  did we run out of harder qs?


Minors and handicaps are liable for intentional torts even if they lack the knowledge of consequences. That brings us to those memorable days of 1L when we got stuck for weeks talking about that Garrett v. Daily –who pulled chair out from under his aunt;
He had intent to pull out the chair, general intent was enough

A
Also, he was being encouraged by parents and that would also make parents liable, isnt it?

:) I guess, or we are getting better!


<!--[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 <!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin:0in; margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";} @page Section1 {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Section1;} --> <!--[if gte mso 10]> A is correct. Children as young as four have been held capable of forming a tortious intent and can be held liable for their own actions. Upon proof of either purpose or knowledge to a substantial certainty that his actions would cause harm, the question becomes one of whether Dave's intent was acted upon in fact. The facts clearly indicate that Dave's actions were intentional ("well-deserved reputation" & "for no reason") and without privilege, causing severe injuries to a much younger child. Therefore, C is wrong. B reaches the correct conclusion but uses the negligence standard. The child's negligence standard is whether the child's age, education, abilities and experiences rendered him capable of knowledge that his conduct was likely to cause harm. Dave acted deliberately to harm another child, thus A is the better answer. D is incorrect. Parents are not liable for the torts of their children where they are not in direct physical control of the child, unless the action falls under the exception of known propensity for a specific type of dangerous conduct and, they failed to take measures to control the child. Courts have long held, however, that children can be held liable for their intentional actions. See the discussion for A, supra.