4 ms·

> No, the closest thing to that is general negligence, where you owe a duty of reasonable care. So your legal system does recognize a duty not to damage others

> No, the closest thing to that is general negligence, where you owe a duty of reasonable care. So your legal system does recognize a duty not to damage others' property. I think it is safe to say that flooding the room is a good example of not taking "reasonable care". > If no breach of a legal duty occurs that produces the accident... Irrelevant, as we've already established that there was a legal duty which was breached. > But the argument you make for that position is inconsistent with the results in reality. Only if you start from the position that parents are not responsible for damages caused by their children, which is itself contrary to reality.

gowld 8y ago
Apparently, this German legal model is that small children are a force of nature, like a tornado or hurricane. That's...one answer, and maybe reasonable in the context of homeowners' insurance and social safety nets, but it's not an indictment of some kind of crazy American helicopter parenting.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Apparently, this German legal model is that small children are a force of nature, like a tornado or hurricane. That's pretty much the US model, too; young children are unlikely to be subject to tort liability (under common law, there was a firm cutoff at 7 years for negligence, with a presumption against liability up to 14; now in most jurisdictions it's a balancing test of age, experience, and intelligence.) And even where a child is liable, they are likely to be effectively judgement-proof and many jurisdictions have fairly limited provisions for parent liability for minors torts (California, e.g., has a quantitatively-limited amount of parental liability, for liability from willful misconduct.) There may be some cases where there is a negligence action against parents for reasonable care in supervision, but it's not clear that the duty the would be judged that much differently than in Germany.

gowld 8y ago

Apparently, this German legal model is that small children are a force of nature, like a tornado or hurricane. That's...one answer, and maybe reasonable in the context of homeowners' insurance and social safety nets, but it's not an indictment of some kind of crazy American helicopter parenting.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Apparently, this German legal model is that small children are a force of nature, like a tornado or hurricane. That's pretty much the US model, too; young children are unlikely to be subject to tort liability (under common law, there was a firm cutoff at 7 years for negligence, with a presumption against liability up to 14; now in most jurisdictions it's a balancing test of age, experience, and intelligence.) And even where a child is liable, they are likely to be effectively judgement-proof and many jurisdictions have fairly limited provisions for parent liability for minors torts (California, e.g., has a quantitatively-limited amount of parental liability, for liability from willful misconduct.) There may be some cases where there is a negligence action against parents for reasonable care in supervision, but it's not clear that the duty the would be judged that much differently than in Germany.