<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ckbaby:
In Feb. of 98 my son was hit in the eye with a bamboo stick buy another little boy(7) that I was babysitting. It happened in my back yard and my son 6 at the time had to be rushed to the hosptial and then to another one and finally the next day to another one. He had two emergencey surgeries and they did the best they could to save his eyeball. But he is legally blind in that eye. And the mother of the child had never once to this day say anything to me or my son. I live in Washington State. I was wondering if the statue of limitations had run out or if it was still possible to sue her and if I could on what grounds could I sue her? Any responses would be greatful. Thank you. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
My response:
This is sad. While the Statute of Limitation won't run until 1 year after he turns 18, it really makes no difference. A child of 7 is of "tender years" and cannot appreciate or understand, fully, right from wrong, or be held liable for negligence. Only in very narrow situations, if the child was truly "malicious" and the parent(s) knew their child to be malicious, and failed to warn you, then in that scenario, would the parents be liable. However, proving malice or the child's previous and dangerous history, is an extreme, uphill, battle.
Minors (under age 18) are civilly liable for their own tortious conduct, but certain legal principles apply to measure and limit a minor's liability. For purposes of negligence liability, minors are not held to the same standard of conduct as adults. Rather, they are required to exercise only that degree of care ordinarily exercised by minors of like maturity, intelligence and capacity under similar circumstances. However, minors engaged in activities normally engaged in only by adults and requiring adult qualifications (e.g., operating motor vehicles) are held to the standard of care of an adult under similar circumstances. [See Prichard v. Veterans Cab Co. (1965) 63 Cal.2d 727, 732, 47 Cal.Rptr. 904, 907]. The parent-child relationship does not itself render parents vicariously liable for their minor child's torts, but there are recognized theories of liability against parents, and because of that, parental liability may lie under any of the following circumstances:
1. The parent has knowledge of the child's prior misconduct;
2. The parent signed the child's driver's license application or the child drives the parent's car with permission;
3. The child is guilty of willful misconduct;
4. The child was given access to firearms;
5. The child defaced another's property with graffiti; or
6. The child is convicted of a crime and ordered to pay restitution to the victim.
IAAL
------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."
[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited June 13, 2000).]
