Paul v. Hummel

1. Infants — Parent not responsible for trespasses of. — A parent cannot be held liable for the willful trespasses and torts of his infant children, when he neither assents to nor ratifies them. 2. Infants, liability of for torts. — Where a minor has committed a tort, with force, he is liable, at any age, to be proceeded against like an adult.

Error to St. Louis Circuit Court. ./'’^Plaintiff sued defendant for damages, in the sum- of two thousand dollars, for injury to her minor son, aged six years, received at the hands of a minor son of defendant, aged eleven years, who was residing with, and under the charge and control of, his father, the said defendant. In the petition plaintiff stated in substance, among other matters, that said son of defendant became and was dangerous to plaintiff and her children, by reason of his vicious and destructive temper and of his sudden and causeless fits of anger, and that plaintiff notified said defendant of said fact, and desired him to restrain and control his said son, to the end that she and her children might live in safety; that said defendant failed and neglected to restrain and control his said son; and that, in consequence of such failure and neglect, said injury resulted. To this petition the defendant demurred, on the ground that a father is not responsible for injuries caused by an assault made by his minor child. The demurrer was sustained by the court below, and final judgment thereon entered in favor of defendant. Baker v. Haldeman, 24 Mo. 219, on the authority of which the court below sustained the demurrer in this case, was an action to recover damages for an alleged assault upon the minor son of plaintiff by the minor son of defendant. The petition charged an assault with a knife, and cutting, maiming, and wounding therewith. The jury, having been instructed, at the instance of defendant, that “ unless the plaintiff has established that the boy was of vicious disposition and .habits, and that the father knew it at the time, he is not responsible in damages for the injury sustained, ” found a verdict for the defendant. On error to this court, the only question was on the instruction, which was decided to be erroneous, but not to the plaintiff’s prejudice, and not a matter for him to complain of. In the case now before the court the plaintiff seeks to recover on other and different grounds from those occupied by the plaintiff in Baker v. Haldeman. In that case it was attempted to charge defendant with liability for a trespass committed by his son, solely because the defendant was the father of the trespasser. In this case the plaintiff proceeds on the theory that it was the duty of the father to control and restrain his son, a member of his family,- unfitted by age and temper to govern himself, whereby, by reason of his disposition and habits, he was dangerous to the neighbors, and when the father had been notified by them that such was the fact, and so requested to do. . If the damage had been charged in our petition to have been committed by a mischievous and dangerous animal, the property of defendant, the demurrer would have been overruled. (Durden v. Barnett, 7 Ala. 169; Dennis v. Clark, 2 Cush. 847.) Can the fact that it was perpetrated by the mischievous and dangerous son of defendant, irresponsible by reason of his minority and disposition, excuse the defendant from the consequences of his own negligence? / I. The statute law of Missouri recognizes no liability of the father for torts committed by his infant child. (Gen. Stat. 1865, ch. 117, § 28.) IE. At common law a father is not liable for the tortious acts of his minor children. (Moore v. Powers, 8 C. B., N S., 611.) “ The defendant was not answerable for the acts of his daughter done in his absence and without his authority or approval; but the daughter, whether an infant or not, 'was answerable for her trespass.” (Tifft v. Tifft, 4 Den. 175.) “ Infants are liable in the same manner as adults for trespass and assault.” (Bullock v. Babcock, 3 Wend. 391.) In the case of Baker v. Haldeman, 24 Mo. 219, the law, as applicable to this case, is fully discussed, leaving no kind of doubt concerning it. The Supreme Court of Missouri are unanimous that “a father is- not • responsible for injuries caused by an assault made by his minor son,” and the reasons given appear to be unanswerable.