Ellis v. D'Angelo

California Court of Appeal · Torts

Tortsbatterynegligenceparental liabilityinfant tort liabilityCivil Code section 41infant tortsbattery intent

Facts

Plaintiff was employed for the first time by the defendant parents as a baby sitter for their 4-year-old son, Salvatore D'Angelo. The complaint alleged that the child pushed, impelled, and knocked plaintiff violently to the floor, fracturing bones in both her arms and wrists. It further alleged that the child habitually engaged in violent attacks on other people and that his parents knew this but failed to warn plaintiff or inform her of those traits. Plaintiff sought recovery against the child for battery and negligence, and against the parents for their own negligence.

Issue

Whether the complaint stated a cause of action against a 4-year-old child for battery and negligence, and whether it stated a cause of action against the child's parents for negligently failing to warn or control the child despite knowledge of his violent propensities. The case also asked how Civil Code section 41 applies to tort liability of very young children.

Rule

Under Civil Code section 41, a minor is civilly liable for compensatory damages for a wrong done by him even if he is incapable of knowing the wrongful character of the act, so long as he has the mental capacity to possess the state of mind required for the particular tort. For battery, the relevant inquiry is whether the child could intend the violent or harmful contact; for negligence, a child is measured by the degree of care ordinarily used by children of the same age, and a 4-year-old lacks the mental capacity to foresee harm from inadvertent conduct. A parent is not vicariously liable for a child's torts, but may be liable for the parent's own negligence when the parent knows of the child's dangerous propensities and fails to exercise reasonable care to warn or control.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Nora Kim is hired to watch 4-year-old Liam Porter for an evening. During a tantrum, Liam angrily hurls himself at Nora and strikes her in the knees, causing her to fall and suffer a broken ankle; Liam later says he did not know it was "bad" to do that.

If Nora sues Liam for battery seeking compensatory damages, what is the strongest argument against dismissing the claim at the pleading stage?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a minor may be liable for compensatory damages if the minor has the mental capacity for the state of mind required by the tort. For battery, the key question is capacity to intend harmful or violent contact, not capacity to know the act was wrongful. A 4-year-old is not deemed incapable of such intent as a matter of law, so the battery claim should survive and intent must be resolved as a fact question. (Derived from Ellis v. D'Angelo (n.d.).)