When a minor causes serious harm, questions about who should be held legally responsible often arise. My colleague, Kristen King, and I had the pleasure of successfully defending Mr. H at trial last year in a lawsuit resulting from a horrific motor vehicle collision. Mr. H's then 16-year-old grandson ("T") had lived with him for just over three months due to issues he was working through. T took Mr. H's truck in the early morning hours and was entirely at fault for a collision, which killed the passenger in the other vehicle and seriously injured the driver. I am not using the parties' real names nor providing a link to the decision because its publication is prohibited under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
Theories of Negligence and Liability for Minor's Actions
Several theories of negligence were advanced against Mr. H including whether T had his implied consent to possess the vehicle, whether Mr. H exercised reasonable care as the owner of the truck to prevent it from being stolen, and, uniquely, whether Mr. H could be held responsible for negligently supervising his grandson.
Parental Responsibility Act and Its Application to Non-Parents
At trial, Justice Cook agreed that the Parental Responsibility Act codified the common law civil liability of parents for a minor child's torts. Section 10(2) of the PRA establishes a reverse onus in such situations:
In an action against a parent for damage to property or for personal injury or death caused by the fault or neglect of a child who is a minor, the onus of establishing that the parent exercised reasonable supervision and control over the child rests with the parent.
Can a Grandfather Be Held Liable for Grandson's Actions Under the PRA?
The PRA adopts the definition of "parent" provided in the Family Law Act, which includes not just biological and adoptive parents, but anyone who has demonstrated a settled intention to treat a child as the child of his or her family.
Court's Ruling: Grandfather Not Considered a "Parent" Under the PRA
Her Honour held our client was not T's "parent" largely because the informal care arrangement was intended to be short term and transitional, initially expected to be just two months, and not a permanent change giving rise to a parent/child relationship. Other relevant factors to consider include the purported parent's financial responsibility for the child, whether they were in a position to discipline the child as a typical parent would, and/or how the adult presents the relationship to the community at large.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
