Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!zen!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!taylor From: daveb@rtech.UUCP (Dave Brower) Newsgroups: comp.society Subject: Re: Parental Responsibility and Software Piracy Message-ID: <1240@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> Date: 18 Dec 87 02:13:37 GMT Sender: taylor@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM Organization: Relational Technology, Inc. Alameda, CA Lines: 67 Approved: taylor@hplabs I'm not sure I understand Dave's problem with this concept [of parents being sued for illegal acts their children engaged in]. Parents are often liable. The key issue would seem to be whether the parent is negligent in not being aware of the child's activities. A strong case can be made that a parent is negligent in allowing totally unsupervised use of a computer with a modem, particularly in light of the extensive attention that has been paid to criminal hacker-dom. It is not that the parent knows, or is aware of the kid's activities, but that the parent _should_ know, and that lack of knowledge is negligence. And remember, a copyright infringement is just as much a tort as running over some bushes in the family car on an unwatched joy ride. There is nothing special about "computer" in this context. If Bobby poisons the neighbor's cat, the parents can't escape by saying, "We didn't know there was anything dangerous in the chemistry set." From "Gilbert Law Summaries, TORTS" by Marc A. Franklin, a Cliff's notes for law students: "(1) Common Law rule -- no vicarious liability: [S504] Under the general common law rule, a parent is NOT vicariously responsible for torts committed by the child. The rationale is that the parent simply does not have sufficient control to justify liability where the parent was not otherwise negligent. "(a) Statutory changes: [S505] However, the common law rule has been modified by statutes in many states today, so that vicarious liability will be imposed under certain circumstances [ See, e.g., Cal. Civ Code S1714.1, making parent liable up to $2000.00 for any "willful misconduct" of child...] "(2) Liability based on parent's own negligence: [S506] Even if not vicariously liable for a child's torts (above), a parent -- or anyone else having care or custody of a child--can be held liable for injuries cause by the child _where the parent himself was negligent_. In other words, these are cases based on the parent's _own liability_--and not any imputed or vicarious liability. Thus the parent may be liable for: ... "(b) Failing to exercise reasonable care to protect again st the child's known dangerous tendencies (e.g, allowing a child who had previously caused fires to have matches) ... "(d) Failing to prevent child's foreseeable use of inherently dangerous instrumentalities (e.g, leaving dynamite caps or loaded firearms in child's presence) "(e) Negligent Entrustment, see S476... "Negligent Entrustment doctrine: [S476] Even if the tortious act has not been committed in the bailor's presence, she will be liable if she has failed to exercise reasonable care in selecting the bailee--i.e., she knows or should know the bailee is likely to cause harm to others. "1) Example: Entrusting a car to an inexperienced driver, or to a driver known to be irresponsible... "2) Example: Parents have been held liable for negligently entrusting a vehicle to a child with known reckless propensities, even where title to the car is in the child." Simple solutions: don't have kids, or lock them in a closet. (Is this really necessary? -> :-) -dB