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

Browse Search

41 Parental Responsibility When Dog Bites Child 3-3-2014 shown that the parent knew, or in the exercise of due care, should have known of the child's propensities and could have reasonably foreseen that failure to control those propensities would result in injurious consequences. Liability for the torts of their minor children may be imposed on parents if they know, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known of the child's habits, tendencies or propensities toward the commission of a particular tort, have the opportunity and ability to control the child, and have made no reasonable effort to correct or restrain the child. The parent may also be liable for directly aiding, abetting, soliciting, or encouraging the wrongful act,participating in, or commanding, advising, or encouraging the commission of the tort. 23 N.C. Index 4th Parent and Child § 15 (Liability of Parent for Torts of Child) (citation omitted) An example within the context of the Unified Ordinance may be helpful in assessing the state of affairs where a negligently supervised trespassing child has been bitten by a dog. Suppose a five year old child entered upon her neighbor's property in a manner that could be considered grossly negligent if done by an adult, and while on the property was bitten by her neighbor's dog without provoking the dog. Arguably, the willful trespass exception would not shield the dog from categorization as a vicious animal because the child lacks the capacity for negligent behavior in the eyes of the law. The dog's owner, however, may assert that the child's parents were responsible for the child being bitten because the parents should have been supervising the child more effectively. In this case, under the current proposed Unified Ordinance, one interpretation of a practical answer to the dog owner's assertion of parental responsibility is that no exception prevents the dog from being classified as a vicious animal under the Ordinance, but the dog owner may have an independent claim against the child's parent's for damages which are the consequence of the incident. These damages could theoretically include, among other things, the cost to the dog owner of complying with the vicious animal restrictions of the Ordinance. As can be seen from the hypothetical example, neither party is likely to be satisfied by the outcome of an incident where a negligently supervised child has been bitten. The dog owner may be upset by the potential categorization of the dog as a vicious animal, while the parents of the child—in addition to their displeasure with any injury suffered by the child—may be upset by their potential exposure to independent civil liability.