A. Daniel Woska & Associates, P.C. | Dan Woska
A minor in Oklahoma is a person of sound mind who is less than 18 years old today. A minor with parents and living at home is under a legal disability in the eyes of the law. The minor cannot be legally responsible for his own negligence until he is an adult at 18. The parents, the policy of insurance your parents may have purchased and the facts must be ascertained before the legal analysis can take place. The legal analysis will involve the 17 year old and the adult parents and the policy of insurance.
Answer Applies to: Oklahoma
Law Office of Ronald Arthur Lowry | Ronald Arthur Lowry
Aside from the criminal implications the 17 year old is responsible for his own actions in civil matters, too. that means he can be held liable in a court of law for damages. Most people have homeowners' insurance that would provide liability insurance coverage to any household member that is sued, so there should be insurance that would cover the 17 year old's actions. The parents are probably not liable themselves unless they did something to facilitate the injury.
Answer Applies to: Georgia
Bulman Law Associates PLLC Injury Law Firm | Thomas Bulman
The child is responsible for his actions at age 17. Criminal charges should be explored with law enforcement. If the parents knew and allowed their son to act carelessly with the gun, they may be responsible. Their home insurance may be a source of recovery but this it is very complicated to pursue such a claim. You should consult an attorney before doing anything.
Answer Applies to: Montana
Paul Whitfield and Associates P.A. | Paul L. Whitfield
Parents are generally not liable for the torts of their children,. To get the parents involved you would have to show that they encouraged this type behavior in some way. Sue the 17 year old when he gets 18 and you may get a judgment he will someday have to pay (with interest) to clear his credit (when he wants to buy a car or a home etc).
Answer Applies to: North Carolina
Barry Rabovsky & Associates | Barry Rabovsky
We would be happy to provide you with a free consultation if you call my office at either of the numbers listed below. If my office accepts your case, there is no fee charged unless we are able to obtain a settlement for you. Thank you for your email, and we look forward to hearing from you.
Answer Applies to: Illinois
Law Offices of Andrew D. Myers | Andrew D. Myers
Such a case would be extremely fact specific. A useful analysis would require many more facts than a line or two posted on the internet. Any legal thoughts based only on this information would be theoretical in nature only and that is not what you need.
Answer Applies to: New Hampshire
Coulter's Law | Coulter K. Richardson
The 17 year old is definitely responsible. However, the 17 year old likely has few assets of his own. The parents, only to the extent they knew about the 17 year olds' behavior and did nothing about it are responsible. If the parents were unaware of the conduct on that day or unaware of their son's violent tendencies, they are likely not liable. As an intentional act, it would not be covered by insurance.
Answer Applies to: New Jersey
R. D. Kelly Law Firm, P.L.L.C. | Robert Kelly
The main person legally responsible for a wrongful act is the person (if any) who acted wrongfully. If the person was a minor, the minor owes the injured party for the damages. Of course, many minors are judgment-proof due to insufficient assets and minors can sometimes avoid debts by declaring bankruptcy, too. RCW 4.24.190 establishes an action against parents for willful injury to person or property by a minor by saying the following:"The parent or parents of any minor child under the age of eighteen years who is living with the parent or parents and who shall willfully or maliciously destroy or deface property, real or personal or mixed, or who shall willfully and maliciously inflict personal injury on another person, shall be liable to the owner of such property or to the person injured in a civil action at law for damages in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars. This section shall in no way limit the amount of recovery against the parent or parents for their own common law negligence. [1996 c 35 2; 1992 c 205 116; 1977 ex.s. c 145 1; 1967 ex.s. c 46 1; 1961 c 99 1.]
Answer Applies to: Washington
Magnuson Lowell P.S. | Richard S. Lowell
Certainly, the 17 year old is responsible. The parents would also be responsible for at least $5000. That's because, by statute, a parent is responsible for the intentional injury inflicted by a minor child upon another - for up to $5k. However, a parent can also be responsible for the intentional acts of a child if it can be proved that the parent negligently provided the gun to the child - knowing that the child posed a risk to others of intentionally shooting others.
Answer Applies to: Washington
Ewusiak & Roberts, P.A. | Christopher J. Roberts
The answer depends on the specific circumstances surrounding the incident, and the history of the 17 year old. The 17 year old is clearly responsible himself for any injury caused to the 5 year old, given that he apparently shot him intentionally. The parents are not automatically responsible for the actions of their child, but they could be found to share responsibility under some circumstances. For example, if they contributed to the incident by making the gun available to the 17 year old despite a history of violent behavior, that could make them liable. You should talk to a lawyer who can help you determine the potential claims (and defenses) in light of all the pertinent facts.
Answer Applies to: Florida