California imposes limits on parental liability for the intentional torts of a minor. Intentional torts are claims such as assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and intentional misrepresentation.
Civil Code section 1714.1(a) provides that “any act of willful misconduct of a minor that results in injury…shall be imputed to the parent and … shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages resulting from the willful misconduct.”
Subdivision (a) also provides that subject to (c), the joint and several liability of the parent…shall not exceed $25,000 [currently $45,000] for each tort of the minor, and in the case of injury to a person, imputed liability shall be further limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses incurred by the injured person, not to exceed $25,000 [currently $45,000].
Subdivision (c) provides that the joint and several liability amount be adjusted every two years by the Judicial Council. The current amount of joint and several parental liability is $45,000, which was last adjusted on 7/1/2019.
Subdivision (e) limits the liability on an insurer. “An insurer shall not be liable for the conduct imputed to a parent…for any amount in excess of $10,000.”
Parents can also, however, be held liable for negligent supervision of a minor where the above discussed cap does not apply. Parents are responsible for harm caused by their child only where it has been shown that they, as reasonable persons, previously became aware of habits or tendencies of the child that made it likely that the child would misbehave so that the parents should have restrained the child in apposite conduct and actions. (Reida v. Lund (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 698, 702.)
In Reida, Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (a motion that found judgment in the Defendant’s favor before trial) was affirmed on appeal. Plaintiff had tried to use a declaration from a psychiatrist who looked at newspaper articles, read declarations of the defendant parents, and concluded that the defendant child was schizophrenic. The court held that plaintiffs’ version was verifiable – if the schizophrenia was obvious it could have been verified by teachers, doctors, students, friends, acquaintances, and neighbors. The names of those people had been furnished but plaintiffs did not present any evidence to contradict the declarations of the defendant parents. LESSON: you need evidence to show why the defendant parents were or should have been on notice.
Handling cases involving a minor defendant can have many more complexities besides the ones discussed here. You should obtain legal advice for how to proceed.