Francis v. Farnham
1982 Ore. App. LEXIS 3128, 648 P.2d 1349, 58 Or. App. 469 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a parental liability statute holding parents liable for damages caused by a tort intentionally committed by their minor child, liability attaches if the child intentionally commits the underlying tortious act, even if the child does not specifically intend to cause the resulting property damage.
Facts:
- Teresa Farnham was the unemancipated minor daughter of Robert and Janet Farnham.
- Teresa intentionally took control of the plaintiff's vehicle.
- Teresa drove the vehicle away without the plaintiff's permission or knowledge.
- While driving the vehicle, Teresa drove it off the pavement and collided with a private residence.
- As a result of the collision, the plaintiff's vehicle was substantially destroyed.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against Robert and Janet Farnham in an Oregon trial court, seeking to hold them liable for damages caused by their minor daughter.
- The Farnhams filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the complaint did not allege their daughter intentionally damaged the car.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Farnhams.
- Plaintiff (appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Court of Appeals of Oregon.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Oregon's parental liability statute, ORS 30.765, which holds parents liable for damages caused by a tort 'intentionally committed' by their minor child, require that the child intentionally cause the property damage, or is it sufficient that the child intentionally committed the underlying tort that resulted in the damage?
Opinions:
Majority - Gillette, P. J.
No. The parental liability statute does not require that the child intentionally cause the damage, but only that the child intentionally commit the underlying tort. The court reasoned that Teresa Farnham's act of intentionally taking the plaintiff's car without permission constituted the intentional tort of conversion. The court adopted the Restatement (Second) of Torts definition of conversion, which is an 'intentional exercise of dominion or control' over another's property. The court clarified that for the tort of conversion, the resulting harm to the property does not need to be intentional; liability can attach for even accidental harm that occurs during the conversion. By analyzing the text of ORS 30.765, the court determined that the word 'intentionally' modifies the verb 'committed,' which refers to the commission of the tort itself, not the resulting damage. Therefore, because the complaint adequately alleged that Teresa intentionally committed the tort of conversion, her parents could be held liable for the subsequent, even if accidental, destruction of the car.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of parental liability for intentional torts committed by their minor children. It establishes that the requisite intent applies to the underlying tortious act (e.g., taking property) rather than the specific consequences of that act (e.g., damaging the property). This lowers the burden of proof for plaintiffs, as they do not need to demonstrate that the minor specifically intended the resulting harm. The ruling aligns the interpretation of the parental liability statute with common law tort principles, specifically for torts like conversion, where liability for all resulting harm flows from the initial intentional act of interference with property.
