Ritter v. Thibodeaux
| Decision Date | 16 June 1897 |
| Citation | 41 S.W. 492 |
| Parties | RITTER v. THIBODEAUX. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Galveston county court; William B. Lockhart, Judge.
Suit for damages for personal injury by Pierre Thibodeaux against William Ritter, Sr. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Lovejoy & Sampson, for appellant.
Appellee, a minor, by and through his father, sued appellant in the county court of Galveston county, to recover damages in the sum of $1,000, incurred by reason of the loss of an eye, caused by appellee being shot by the minor son of appellant. The cause was tried by a jury, and appellee obtained a verdict and judgment for $200. William Ritter, Jr., the son of appellant, and several other boys, had been out hunting, and were returning home when a boy, in front with appellee, called to the other boys, who had air guns, that he would give them leave to shoot at them. Appellee and his companion then sprang behind a bale of cotton, but appellee peeped out, and, as he did so, was struck in the eye by a shot from the gun of William Ritter, Jr., and the injury was such that he lost his eye. Appellant had no knowledge that his son was out with the gun. The boy did not own a gun, and was not permitted by his father to use one, but he had borrowed the air gun from a neighbor.
Is the father responsible in damages for the act of the son? We are of the opinion that he is not. At common law the father is not liable for the torts of his child, committed without his knowledge or authority, express or implied. Such a case would have been upheld by the civil law, under the operation of which the child occupied the position almost of a slave, but never has been permitted wherever English law has shaped statutes and decisions. The rule generally followed in America is that the father is not liable in damages for the torts of his child committed without his knowledge, consent, participation, or sanction, and not in the course of his employment of the child. Shouler, Dom. Rel. § 263; Tiff. Pers. & Dom. Rel. § 120; Chandler v. Deaton, 37 Tex. 406. Neither the allegations nor the proof show the liability of appellant for the act of his son, and the judgment is therefore reversed, and the cause dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Herrman v. Maley
... ... some jurisdictions, the parent is liable for all tortious ... acts of his minor children." The editor cites Ritter ... v. Thibodeaux (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S.W. 492, as follows: ... "At common law the father is not liable for the torts of ... his child, ... ...
-
Trice v. Bridgewater, 1220.
...168; Lessoff v. Gordon, 58 Tex. Civ. App. 213, 124 S. W. 182; Klapproth v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 144 S. W. 688; Ritter v. Thibodeaux (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 492; Way v. Guest (Tex. Civ. App.) 272 S. W. 217; Brown v. City Service Co. (Tex. Com. App.) 245 S. W. 656; Van Cleave v. Walker (T......
-
Mann v. Cook
...the automobile for his own pleasure. The authorities cited include, among many others, Chandler v. Deaton, 37 Tex. 406; Ritter v. Thibodeaux (Tex. Civ. App.) 41 S. W. 492; Klapproth v. Smith, 144 S. W. 688, by this court; Traham v. Smith (Tex. Civ. App.) 239 S. W. 345; Hays v. Hogan, 273 Mo......
-
Rodriguez v. Spencer
...basis of the parent's duty to third persons is the parent's knowledge, consent, sanction, or participation in the child's activities. 41 S.W. 492, 493 (Tex.Civ.App.1897, no writ). Actual knowledge is not required if the parent should, under the circumstances, reasonably anticipate the conse......