Agenda - 04-08-2014 - 2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

o Attachment C(3) 4a Parental Responsibility When Do g Bites Child 3-3-2014 Question.From Bob's Email: The practical question is how we respond to the objection that the parent is responsible for the child who enters the property of another and gets bitten even if the child was not in the company of a parent(or other adult)at the time of the bite. The theoretical question is more or less the same but probably has to do with whether in law there is-an absence of-contributory negligence on the part of the parent of the child who suffers harm in a variety of scenarios given the parents different duties. Response: The question regarding how the responsibilities of a parent of a child who has been bitten by a dog interface with a vicious animal determination under the Unified Ordinance is difficult as a matter of both practice and theory. On one hand,there is a general societal interest in preventing harm to a child who is not acting with a blameworthy state of mind even when the child may be committing a technical trespass. On the other, it is not reasonable to expect a dog to distinguish between the various possible states of mind or capacities for negligent behavior of a child who has entered upon the property of the dog's owner. Resolving the tension between these points is largely a policy determination that must be made by Animal Services. From a legal perspective,the law does not contemplate a parent's poor supervision of her child changing the nature of a tort committed by the child while being poorly supervised. For example, a technical trespass by a five-year old child(an age at which the law attributes to the child no capacity for negligence)does not become a-willful trespass by virtue of a parent's negligent or grossly negligent supervision. Instead,the law provides for an independent civil remedy against a parent if a plaintiff proves that the parent's negligent supervision proximately caused(by way of the child's tort)damage for which recovery is allowed. See e.g.,Anderson v. Canipe, 69 N.C.App. 534, 537(1984) (recognizing a cause of action against a parent for negligent supervision where child allegedly committed an intentional tort). Strong's North Carolina Index, a publication which provides a general overview of North Carolina law in many areas, describes the State's view on parental liability as follows: Ordinarily,a parent may not be held liable for a tort committed by his or her child solely by reason of the relationship.However,the parent may be liable if the child, in committing the tort, acts in some way in a representative capacity. A parent's liability for acts of an unemancipated child is not limited to those situations in which the parent specifically approved the child's act or in which the child acted strictly in the capacity of the parent's agent or employee; rather, the parent of an unemancipated child may be held liable in damages for failing to exercise reasonable control over the child's behavior if the parent had the ability and the opportunity to control the child and knew or should have known of the necessity for exercising that control.Before it may be found that a parent knew or should have known of the necessity of exercising control over the child, it must be