Harmonious Family Relationships Between Parent and Child - Essay Example

 Suppose you come home one evening to discover that your teenage son "borrowed" your car and went on a spree. First, he dropped by his girlfriend's house to pick her up but once there met with considerable resistance from her parents. Her father stood menacingly in front of the car as your son started the engine, and your son, not one to be intimidated, yelled out the window that he would run over her father if he did not get out of the way. The father, who doggedly stood his ground until the last possible moment, barely escaped injury when he finally jumped aside. Unbeknownst to either your son or his girlfriend, her younger brother had crawled into the back of the car during the fracas with the father. Once your son pulled out of the driveway, the little boy screamed to be released from the car. Your son, who harbored some latent hostility toward the little brother, took great delight in holding him captive for several miles before letting him out of the car to walk home. Next the twosome headed to a remote place in the country to enjoy a little privacy. Deeply involved in professing their love for each other, neither noticed the approach of a man brandishing a gun. The man punctuated each demand to get off his land by firing a shot in the air. Thoroughly frightened, the two lovers beat a hasty retreat but, with one last act of bravado, your son took aim at a sign on the man's property and obliterated it with the car. Later, as an afterthought, your son casually mentioned to you that before leaving the property he took the opportunity to fire a few shots in the man's direction with a gun that he had "borrowed" from you. On the way home, your son drove quite fast and had to swerve to avoid a boy on a bicycle. The boy lost control and hit a tree. A passing pedestrian rushed to help the boy, only to be hit by another car. While in the hospital, the pedestrian was treated by an inexperienced nurse and suffered permanent disfigurement. The pedestrian is unable to work and has emotional anxiety about his appearance. Ultimately, your son arrived safely at home with a car that was only slightly scratched from its close encounter with a sign. B. Issues: What intentional torts were committed in this scenario? What negligent torts were committed in this scenario? State what defenses could have been raised by each of the actors who committed a tort. Also discuss issues of causation. Section 8A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts the Court observed: The fundamental difference between negligent injury, or even grossly negligent injury, and intentional injury is the specific intent to inflict injury. The Restatement Second of Torts defines intentto mean that “the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.” Reed Tool, 689 S.W.2d at 406 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 8A (1965)). Section 8A provides, “The word “ intent throughout the Restatement of this Subject to denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to result from it.” Restatement (Second) oF Torts § 8A. Comment b further elaborates: All consequences which the actor desires to bring about are intended, as the word is used in this Restatement. Intent is not, however, limited to consequences which are desired. If the actor knows that the consequences are certain, or substantially certain, to result from his act, and still goes ahead, he is treated by the law as if he had in fact desired to produce the result. As the probability that the consequences will follow decreases, and becomes less than substantial certainty, the actor's conduct loses the character of intent, and becomes mere recklessness, as defined in § 500. As the probability decreases further, and amounts only to a risk that the result will follow, it becomes ordinary negligence, as defined in § 282. All three have their important place in the law of torts but the liability attached to them will differ. 1. The intentional and unintentional torts committed stand thus: A. False Imprisonment – Taking the child on a ride several blocks away from the house once the child made it known that he was in the car and expressed his wish to get out, is false imprisonment. The essential elements of false imprisonmentor false arrest are (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 92 S.W.3d 502, 506 (Tex.2002). An employer can be held vicariously liable for a wrongful detention or arrest made by an employee or agent acting within the scope of employment. See id. With respect to the third element, “without authority of law,” an employer has a common-law privilege to investigate reasonably credible allegations of employee dishonesty. Randall's Food Mkts. v. Johnson, 891 S.W.2d 640, 644 (Tex.1995); Cuellar v. Walgreens Co., No. 13-00-594-CV, 2002 WL 471317, at *2 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 2002, no pet.). For purposes of a claim for false imprisonment, a detention may be accomplished by violence, by threats, or by any other means that restrain a person from moving from one place to another. Fojtik v. Charter Medical Corp., 985 S.W.2d 625, 627 (1999). B. Assault - A person commits an assault by (1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causing bodily injury to another, (2) intentionally or knowingly threatening another with imminent bodily injury, or (3) intentionally or knowingly causing physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative. (Per Vance, J., with one justice concurring in judgment only.) V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 22.01. City of Waco v. Williams 209 S.W.3d 216, 217 (2007). This includes the intentional acts of minors. Childers v. A.S. 909 S.W.2d 282, 284 (1999). C. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - To recover damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) the defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) the conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) the actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress; and (4) the resulting emotional distress was severe. GTE Southwest, Inc. v. Bruce, 998 S.W.2d 605, 608 (1999). A Claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress cannot be maintained when the risk that emotional distress will result is merely incidental to the commission of some other tort; accordingly, claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress will not lie if emotional distress is not the intended or primary consequence of the defendant's conduct. Id. The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress simply has no application when the actor intends to invade some other legally protected interest, even if emotional distress results. Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 46. D. Nuisance - Actionable nuisance is divided into three classifications: negligent invasion of another's interests, intentional invasion of another's interests, and other conduct, culpable because abnormal and out of place in its surroundings, that invades another's interests. City of Tyler v. Likes 962 S.W.2d 489, 490 Tex.,1997. Another form of this tort is the invasion of privacy concerning intrusion upon property of plaintiffs is an intentional tort analogous to trespass and battery in the protection of personal integrity and includes not only physical invasion of a person's property, but also eavesdropping upon private conversations by wiretapping, microphones or spying into windows of a home. Gonzales v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 555 S.W.2d 219, 220 (1997). E. Intentional Invasion - Section 822, Restatement, Torts (1939), reads: “The actor is liable in an action for damages for a non-trespassory invasion of another's interest in the private use and enjoyment of land if, (a) the other has property rights and privileges in respect to the use or enjoyment interfered with; and (b) the invasion is substantial; and (c) the actor's conduct is a legal cause of the invasion; and (d) the invasion is either (i) intentional and unreasonable . . ..” An intentional invasion is defined in s 825: “An invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land is intentional when the actor . . . (b) knows that it is resulting or is substantially certain to result from his conduct. Under s 834, a person is subject to the liability stated in s 822, for an invasion of another's use and enjoyment of land caused by an activity “not only when he carries on the activity but also when he participates to a substantial extent in carrying it on.” Under Comment d (s 834), a person participates in carrying on an activity “that either directly or through the creation of a physical condition causes an invasion . . . not only when he acts for his own benefit, but also when he acts in the capacity of servant, agent, or independent contractor. One is not relieved from liability merely because he acts for another's benefit rather than his own,” E. Unintentional Torts – The Texas courts have previously made clear that the distinguishing feature of an intentional tort is “the specific intent to inflict injury.” Reed Tool Co. v. Copelin, 689 S.W.2d 404, 406 (Tex.1985) (citing Restatement (2d) of Torts § 8A (1965)); see also Rodriguez v. Naylor Indus., 763 S.W.2d 411, 412 (Tex.1988). This definition of an “intentional” injury is echoed in the portion of the Restatement governing intentional infliction of emotional distress:The rule stated in this Section applies where the actor desires to inflict severe emotional distress, and also where he knows that such distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. Restatement (2d) of Torts § 46 cmt. i (1965). Unfortunately, in many cases, severe emotional distress is caused by an actor who does not actually desire to inflict severe emotional distress, and who is even oblivious to the fact that such distress is certain, or substantially certain, to result from his conduct. It may well be the case, for example, that the son (in the facts mentioned in page one) never actually intended to inflict emotional distress upon anyone, and never expected the injury that his conduct caused. Twyman v. Twyman, 855 S.W.2d 619, 624 (1993). F. Parental Negligence - The rule in this State is that negligence of the parents is never to be imputed to their infant child who has not yet arrived at the age of discretion where he can be expected to look after his own safety. For this reason the negligence of the parents in permitting a child to go into a place of danger is never to be plead as contributory negligence to bar a recovery by the infant child in a suit instituted solely for his own benefit. Kuemmel v. Vradenburg, 239 S.W.2d 869, 878 (1951). 2. Causation To support a jury's finding of causation, the plaintiff must prove both general and specific causation. In other words, a plaintiff must prove that the agent he or she alleges caused injury or illness 1) could do so in the general population, and 2) did so to him or her specifically. Minnesota Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Atterbury, 978 S.W.2d 183, 186 (1998). The use of ‘foreseeability’ as a working formula for causation is settled law, although it is an admitted illogical concept. It was adopted and we are committed to that settled law in order to ‘avoid as far as possible the metaphysical and philosophical niceties in the age-old discussion of causation.’ City of Dallas v. Maxwell, Tex.Com.App., 248 S.W. 667, 670, 27 A.L.R. 927. Confessedly, logic is abandoned in favor of a more practical rule which generally serves very well. Kuemmel v. Vradenburg, 239 S.W.2d 869, 871 (1951). 3. Defenses – Parental Immunity Parental immunity is the law in Texas. See Jilani By and Through Jilani v. Jilani, 767 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.1988); Felderhoff v. Felderhoff, 473 S.W.2d 928 (Tex.1971). The parental immunity doctrine is designed for the protection of family peace and tranquility and the parental right to discipline, control and care of children. The courts in Texas have held that to allow litigation between parents and a child would be an adverse, unwarranted intrusion into the family circle. Texas, however, has carved out three exceptions to the parental immunity doctrine. The three are: 1. Parental immunity does not apply when a parent commits a willful, malicious, or intentional wrong against a child or abandons or abdicates his parental responsibility and thereby subjects himself or herself to liability. 2. Texas does not apply the parental immunity doctrine when the act complained of arises outside of a normal family relationship of a parent to a child, such as a business activity in which the child is the employee and the parent is the employer. 3. The third exception to the parental immunity doctrine allows a child to recover against a negligent parent for damages caused by the negligent parent in operating a motor vehicle. One would have to argue that their cause of action does not fall within any of the three exceptions to the parental immunity doctrine. Therefore, this salutary doctrine protects the parents of the wayward son portrayed in the fact pattern above. Parental immunity applies with respect to alleged acts of ordinary negligence which involve a reasonable exercise of parental authority or the exercise of ordinary parental discretion. The Court in Felderhoff, supra, stated at page 933 that: [P]eace, tranquility and discipline in the home are endowed and inspired by higher authority than statutory enactments and court decisions. Harmonious family relationships depend on filial and parental love and respect which can neither be created nor preserved by legislatures or courts. The most we can do is to prevent the judicial system from being used to disrupt the wide sphere of reasonable discretion which is necessary in order for parents to properly exercise their responsibility to provide nurture, care, and discipline for their children. These parental duties, which usually include the provision of a home, food, schooling, family chores, medical care, and recreation, could be seriously impaired and retarded if parents were to be held liable to lawsuits by their unemancipated minor children for unintentional errors or ordinary negligence occurring while in the discharge of such parental duties and responsibilities. It is in this sphere of family relations between parent and child that the rule of immunity from litigation continues to find justification and validity. Read More