Ellis v. D'Angelo
116 Cal. App. 2d 310, 1953 Cal. App. LEXIS 1072, 253 P.2d 675 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An infant is liable for intentional torts, such as battery, if they have the mental capacity to intend the harmful contact, but a child of tender years (e.g., age four) is incapable of negligence as a matter of law. Parents may be held liable for their own negligence if they know of their child's dangerous propensities and fail to exercise reasonable care to control the child or warn others.
Facts:
- The defendants hired the plaintiff to act as a babysitter for their four-year-old son, Salvatore D'Angelo.
- This was the plaintiff's first time being employed by the family.
- Salvatore D'Angelo had a known habit of violently attacking people, throwing himself against them, and shoving them.
- Salvatore's parents were aware of his habitual violent behavior.
- The parents did not warn the plaintiff about their son's violent tendencies.
- Shortly after the plaintiff began her babysitting duties, Salvatore D'Angelo attacked her.
- He pushed and knocked her violently to the floor, causing her to suffer serious injuries, including fractured bones in both arms and wrists.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against Salvatore D’Angelo (a minor) and his parents in a California trial court.
- The defendants filed a demurrer to the plaintiff's first amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid cause of action.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend, dismissing the plaintiff's entire case.
- A judgment was entered in favor of the defendants.
- The plaintiff, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal of California, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Can a complaint state valid causes of action against a four-year-old child for battery and negligence, and against the child's parents for their own negligence in failing to warn a babysitter of the child's known violent habits?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooling, J.
Yes, as to the battery and parental negligence claims; No, as to the child's negligence claim. A minor is civilly liable for his torts, and the key inquiry is whether the minor possesses the mental state required for the specific tort alleged. For battery, the required intent is merely to make a harmful or offensive contact. The court reasoned that it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that a four-year-old is incapable of forming this intent; therefore, whether the child acted with such intent is a question of fact for a jury. In contrast, negligence requires the mental capacity to foresee that one's conduct might lead to another's injury. The court held that, as a matter of law, a four-year-old child lacks the mental development to foresee the possibilities of their inadvertent conduct and thus cannot be found negligent. Finally, while parents are not vicariously liable for their children's torts, they are liable for their own negligence. The complaint sufficiently alleged that the parents knew of their child's violent tendencies and breached their duty to control the child or warn the plaintiff, making them potentially liable for their own negligence.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant distinction in tort law concerning the liability of very young children. It rejects a blanket immunity based on age, instead tying liability to the specific mental state required for the tort in question. The decision clarifies that a child can be deemed legally capable of forming the intent necessary for battery while simultaneously being legally incapable of the foresight required for negligence. This bifurcated approach has a major impact on litigation involving young children, forcing courts to analyze capacity on a tort-by-tort basis. Furthermore, it reinforces the principle of direct parental liability for negligent supervision when parents have knowledge of a child's specific dangerous propensities.
