A six-year-old child is returning from school and whilst crossing a busy street causes a traffic accident in which two passing motor vehicles collide. A primary school pupil slips on the stairs during break time and breaks his leg.
A sixteen-year-old child gets into a fight with a friend during his free time and tears his winter jacket in the process. A five-year-old child throws a stone at a passing motor vehicle and breaks its front window. In all the above-mentioned cases, damage occurs, either damage to property or damage to health. However, who will be liable for this damage? Will it be the minor child who causes the damage, his legal representatives, or another person who, for example, looks after the child temporarily?
The statutory guidance on how to answer this question is provided primarily by the provision of Section 422 of the Civil Code. According to this provision, a minor is liable for damage caused by him if he is capable of controlling his conduct and assessing its consequences. Jointly and severally liable with him is the person who is obliged to exercise supervision over him. If the minor who causes the damage is, due to his insufficient mental maturity, not capable of controlling his conduct or assessing its consequences, only the person who is obliged to exercise supervision over him is liable for the damage. The person obliged to exercise supervision over the minor may be exempted from liability if he proves that he did not neglect proper supervision.
Liability for damage caused by a minor child comes into consideration provided that the other statutory prerequisites for liability for damage are fulfilled in respect of his person, i.e. the conduct of the minor, damage as a consequence of this conduct, and causal connection between the conduct and the consequence.
The provision of Section 422 of the Civil Code applies only to cases of damage caused by minor children. If damage is caused by a child who has already attained majority, whether by reaching the age of eighteen or by entering into marriage, only this adult child is liable for the damage. Joint and several liability of persons who would be liable for the damage as a result of neglecting proper supervision does not come into consideration here. The law proceeds from the fact that upon attaining majority, a natural person acquires full capacity for legal acts and thus also for unlawful acts, and is himself liable for his conduct and therefore also for the damage which he causes by his conduct. By a certain person attaining majority, the obligation of other persons to supervise his conduct ceases, and thus also the possible application of the provision of Section 422 of the Civil Code.
The provision of Section 422 of the Civil Code offers four different alternatives of the circle of persons liable for damage caused by a minor tortfeasor. Either the minor tortfeasor alone may be liable for the damage, or the person who is obliged to exercise supervision over him alone, or both may be jointly liable, or a situation may arise where neither of them will be liable.
Liability of a minor child for damage caused by him comes into consideration if the damage is caused by a minor who is already intellectually mature enough to be capable of assessing the consequences of his conduct and controlling this conduct. It is not possible to precisely determine a certain age limit from which the minor is already liable for the consequences of certain acts. In a specific case, it is necessary to assess the personality of the minor tortfeasor, evaluate the degree of his intellectual maturity, and assess whether he is capable of recognising the unlawfulness of certain conduct and being aware of its consequences (the so-called intellectual aspect) and whether he is capable of deciding by his own will whether he will act in a certain manner or whether he will refrain from certain conduct (the so-called volitional aspect). For the liability of the minor for his certain conduct, both the intellectual and volitional aspects must be fulfilled in relation to this conduct. If this is not the case, the minor person is not liable for the damage due to lack of fault. The liability of a minor must always be assessed from his subjective point of view. In possible court proceedings, it is usually necessary to involve an expert or at least obtain a professional opinion, for example from the relevant healthcare facility, to assess the person of the minor.
Furthermore, the person who was obliged to exercise supervision over the minor who caused damage by his conduct may be liable for the damage. Persons who have the obligation to exercise supervision over a minor are, in the first place, primarily his parents. Parents have the obligation to raise their child, guide his behaviour and supervise him. Both parents have this obligation even in a situation where the child has been entrusted to the care of only one of them; in such a case, however, depending on the circumstances of the specific case, the parent who has the child in his care would be more likely to be liable for the damage. The liability of parents ceases particularly where they have been deprived of parental responsibility pursuant to the Family Act. Adoptive parents, who are in a similar position to his parents from the perspective of liability for damage caused by a minor child, prospective adoptive parents who have the minor child in pre-adoption care, or foster parents of a minor child who have taken him into foster care may also be liable for the damage. If the parents of a minor have died, have been deprived of parental responsibility, or do not have full capacity for legal acts, the court may appoint a guardian for the minor child, whose duties also include supervision of the minor’s behaviour, and therefore he too may be liable for damage caused by the minor. If a minor child is, in accordance with the provision of Section 45 of the Family Act, entrusted to the care of a natural person other than the parent – usually a relative of the child – then the obligation of proper supervision belongs to this natural person. If a minor child spends holidays, for example, at a cottage with relatives, then these relatives have the obligation of proper supervision over him during the stay of this minor child at their cottage. Another person who may be liable for damage caused by a minor tortfeasor due to neglecting proper supervision may also be, for example, the husband of the child’s mother who lives with the mother and the child in a common household and who has actually or on the basis of an agreement with the child’s mother assumed to a certain extent the obligation to care for the upbringing of this child. The person liable could also be, for example, a coach who gives private tennis lessons to his minor charge, if this charge causes damage during training, etc.
Liability for damage may also affect a legal person obliged to supervise the minor, most often a school which the minor attends as a pupil. The school is liable not only for damage which the pupil causes during a lesson, but also for damage which the pupil causes during break time. School clubs, nursery schools, crèches, boarding schools, youth homes, institutions for the execution of institutional education or protective education, diagnostic institutes, psychiatric healthcare facilities, children’s wards of hospitals, or social care institutions for youth may also be liable for damage in this way. If supervision over the minor is exercised by a legal person, then this legal person is liable for the damage and not also its employees who physically exercised the supervision themselves. These employees may then be liable to their employer for damage according to employment law regulations.
In the case of damage caused by a minor child, the Civil Code presumes that the person obliged to exercise supervision over this minor child is at fault for this damage. As already stated above, the person exercising supervision over a minor child may be exempted from liability for damage caused by this child if he proves that he did not neglect proper supervision over him. In possible court proceedings, the burden of proof would rest with this person obliged to supervise.
In this connection, I consider it necessary to clarify what the concept of ‘proper supervision’ actually entails. This concept cannot in any case be understood to mean that the person obliged to supervise the minor should exercise supervision constantly, continuously and directly, i.e. that this person should watch the minor’s every step. If this were the case, this person would have practically no possibility of being exempted from liability. The necessary scope of proper supervision over a minor person will depend on the age, intellectual maturity, character traits and overall behaviour of the minor person.
If the conditions for liability for damage are fulfilled both in respect of the minor and in respect of the person obliged to exercise supervision, both are liable for the damage, jointly and severally. Their joint and several liability means that the injured party may claim compensation for the entire damage caused from either of them. Between themselves, the minor and the person obliged to supervise him will then settle according to their participation in causing the damage.
However, a situation may also arise where the conditions for liability for damage are not fulfilled either in respect of the minor tortfeasor (because he is either not capable of controlling his conduct or assessing its consequences) or in respect of the person obliged to supervise the minor (because he proves that he did not neglect proper supervision). In such a case, the injured party himself bears the damage.
In conclusion, I will attempt to answer the question of who comes into consideration as the person obliged to compensate for damage in the examples given in the introduction to this article of mine:
A six-year-old child is returning from school and whilst crossing a busy street causes a traffic accident in which two passing motor vehicles collide. If the child must cross a busy street on the way from school, in this case his parents will probably be liable for the damage, as under these circumstances they should have ensured supervision over the minor on the way from school. However, if the child did not have to cross a busy street on the way from school and only arrived at the place of the accident by chance, the parents of the minor might succeed in proving that they did not neglect proper supervision. Regarding the liability of the child himself, I am of the opinion that, given his young age, he would rather not be liable for the damage caused; however, this would depend on the specific assessment of his intellectual maturity. If there were no liability for damage either on the part of the parents or on the part of the minor child, the injured parties themselves would bear the damage.
A primary school pupil slips on the stairs during break time and breaks his leg. In this case, the liability of the school which the pupil attends and which has the obligation to properly supervise the pupil during lessons and during breaks comes into consideration. If the injury were caused by the fault of, for example, a specific teacher, this teacher would not be liable for the damage, but the school could claim that this teacher compensate it for what it had to expend in compensation for the damage. Contributory fault of the minor pupil would also come into consideration.
A sixteen-year-old child gets into a fight with a friend during his free time and tears his winter jacket in the process. This child could, given his age, be liable for the damage caused, because he should already be capable of assessing the consequences of his conduct and controlling his conduct. The liability of his parents also comes into consideration if they do not prove that they did not neglect proper supervision.
A five-year-old child throws a stone at a passing motor vehicle and breaks its front window. The liability of this child for the damage will depend on a professional assessment of his mental maturity. The liability of his parents will again depend on whether they prove that they did not neglect proper supervision. If they fail to do so, they will be liable for the damage; if they succeed, the injured party will bear the damage himself.
This text was translated from Czech to English using an AI translator.