Horton v. Reaves
1974 Colo. LEXIS 713, 526 P.2d 304, 186 Colo. 149 (1974)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parent is liable for their child's tort only if they knew of the child's propensity for the specific harmful conduct and failed to exercise reasonable care to restrain them. A child is liable for an intentional tort only if they intended the contact and appreciated that the contact may be harmful.
Facts:
- Mrs. Reaves placed her five-week-old daughter on a bed surrounded by pillows to prevent her from falling.
- Mrs. Reaves then left the infant unattended for two and a half hours while she visited a next-door neighbor, Mrs. Horton.
- Mrs. Horton's children, Johnny (age four) and Keith (age three), were seen leaving the Reaves home.
- Johnny told his mother something that indicated the Reaves baby needed attention and, upon questioning, admitted that he had dropped the baby.
- Mrs. Reaves returned home and found her infant on the bedroom floor with a crushed skull.
- The only evidence of prior similar behavior was one occasion when the Horton boys pushed another child off a bed, for which Mrs. Horton reprimanded them.
Procedural Posture:
- The infant plaintiff sued Johnny and Keith Horton, their mother Mrs. Horton, and the infant's own mother, Mrs. Reaves, in district court.
- Prior to trial, the district court dismissed the simple negligence claim against Mrs. Reaves on grounds of parental immunity.
- At the close of the plaintiff’s case, the court dismissed the claim against Mrs. Horton and the remaining willful and wanton misconduct claim against Mrs. Reaves for insufficient evidence.
- The trial proceeded against the two children, Johnny and Keith Horton, and a jury returned a verdict in their favor.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissals of the claims against Mrs. Horton and Mrs. Reaves but reversed the verdict for the Horton children, remanding for a new trial due to an improper jury instruction.
- Both the infant plaintiff and the Horton children petitioned for certiorari to the Supreme Court of Colorado, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
For a very young child to be held liable for an intentional tort like battery, must the child appreciate that their intentional act may be harmful, or is it sufficient that they only intend to commit the physical act itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Groves, J.
No. For a very young child to be held liable for an intentional tort, it is not sufficient that they only intend to commit the physical act; the child must appreciate that their intentional act may be harmful. While the child need not intend the specific extent of the harm, they must have some awareness of the natural consequences and appreciate the offensiveness or wrongfulness of the act. The court also held Mrs. Horton was not liable because parental liability requires proof that (1) the child had a propensity for the specific harmful act, (2) the parent knew of this propensity, and (3) the parent failed to restrain the child, none of which was established here. Finally, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Mrs. Reaves, holding that parental immunity bars simple negligence claims and the act of leaving the child alone did not rise to the level of willful and wanton misconduct.
Concurring - Kelley, J.
Yes, I agree with the outcome regarding the children's liability, but I would establish a bright-line rule. This judge argued that, as a matter of law, children as young as three and four are incapable of appreciating that their intentional contacts may be harmful. This approach would be consistent with the established rule that a child six years of age or younger is incapable of contributory negligence.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Pringle, C.J.
Yes, I agree with the majority's conclusions regarding the liability of Mrs. Horton and her children. However, I dissent from the holding regarding Mrs. Reaves. In my view, a mother leaving a five-week-old infant alone in an unlocked house for two and a half hours presents sufficient evidence for a jury to decide whether her conduct constituted willful and wanton misconduct, which would overcome parental immunity.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Colorado for infant tort liability, shifting from a strict standard (intent to act is sufficient) to a more subjective one requiring that the child appreciate the harmful nature of their actions. This raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold very young children liable for intentional torts. The case also solidifies the three-part test for parental liability for a child's torts, requiring knowledge of a specific propensity, which protects parents from broad liability. The dissent highlights the factual and subjective nature of what constitutes 'willful and wanton' misconduct in the context of parental immunity.
Unlock the full brief for Horton v. Reaves