Standard v. Shine - 278 S.C. 337, 295 S.E.2d 786 (1982)

Rule:

Because parental responsibility statutes create liability in derogation of the common law, they are strictly construed. Where no conflict with common law exists, however, the court will not substitute its view of public policy for that of the legislature. The General Assembly has made clear its choice. No presumptions will be indulged. Minors of any age can commit intentional and malicious torts, specifically the tortious destruction of property.

Facts:

Appellant Larry Shine, Jr., lived with his parents in an apartment operated by the respondent. He was six years old at the time this action arose. Respondent's complaint alleged that the appellant minor negligently set fire to the leased premises resulting in actual damages which respondent sought to recover from him. In a separate cause of action, respondent proceeded against the parents of the minor under Section 20-7-340, Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (***. Supp. 1981). The appellants' demurrers asserted that the minor defendant was as a matter of law incapable of either negligence or an intentional and malicious tort. The demurrers rested upon the conclusive presumption of incapacity that has shielded minors of tender years, that is, below age seven, from allegations of contributory negligence in South Carolina. The trial court overruled the demurrer. Appellants challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Was a minor defendant, as a matter of law, incapable of either negligence or an intentional and malicious tort? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

On review, the court held that a child of tender years was not required to conform to an adult standard of care. A minor's conduct should be judged by the standard of behavior to be expected of a child of like age, intelligence, and experience under like circumstances. The court adopted that standard of care for minors in both primary and contributory negligence cases. Insofar as the decision differed from previous cases that dealt with contributory negligence for minors, those cases were overruled. The court finally found that parental responsibility acts were adopted as an aid in the control of juvenile delinquency. The general assembly made clear that minors of any age could commit intentional and malicious torts, specifically the tortious destruction of property. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of the trial court and remanded for further proceedings.