Liability for harm caused by minors: A comparative legal study

Abstract

The article examines the tort obligations arising in the case of harm to minors under the age of 14. The experience of countries whose legislation does not provide for a general rule on the indelicitability of a minor is studied; it is concluded that in these countries, judicial practice also takes into account the ability or inability of a minor to understand the illegality of his actions or the likelihood of harm. When determining the persons responsible for the harm caused to minors, it was suggested that persons exercising supervision on the basis of a contract should not be understood as relatives or family friends looking after a child as a gratuitous service. On the contrary, commercial organizations that equip a place for children to play automatically become obliged to exercise supervision; as well as persons who, on the basis of a paid contract, provide educational, entertainment, medical, and other similar services to a child. By contracts, by virtue of which a person is obliged to exercise supervision, it is proposed to understand either paid contracts or gratuitous contracts accompanying the process of concluding a paid contract with a consumer (children’s rooms in department stores, restaurants, and so on). The necessity of bringing to responsibility for the harm caused to minors, not only parents, but also persons actually engaged in education (which include, for example, the stepfather or stepmother of the child) is discussed.