If you have been paying attention to the news, you may have heard that a criminal case is just underway in Michigan in which the mother of a child who killed a number students in a school shooting spree is on trial for involuntary manslaughter. And, you may have noticed that an often repeated version of the story is that the case is about whether parents can be held responsible for the conduct of their child.
This formulation of the issue is wrong.
The parents are not on trial for the conduct of their child. That would mean that the state is looking to convict them based on vicarious liability. Instead, the parents are on trial for their own conduct, which led to and resulted in the conduct of the child. That's very different. In other words, the parents are being tried for direct (as opposed to vicarious) liability. They are not facing convictions "for the conduct of their child"; they are facing conviction for their own conduct.
Now, before we go any further, let's remember that this case is a criminal case, not a torts case. But the implications of the possible liability of a parent for the results of the conduct of a child are obviously important for tort law.
In torts, parents are typically not held vicariously liable for the conduct of their children. But they can be held liable for their own conduct if their conduct is a cause that leads to the injury of the plaintiff. Thus, the principle at issue is the same.
However, making the case for tort liability is easier. There seems to be pretty solid support for the arguments of all the elements of the cause of action, including proximate cause since it is relatively easy to argue that the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the negligent conduct, which included giving the child a gun knowing the child was mentally unstable. Of course, the defendant will argue that the conduct of the child was a superseding cause, but the argument will come down to whether the child's conduct was unforeseeable, and there is good support to defeat that argument.
BUT back to the actual case in Michigan, what is different is that for criminal liability, the conduct in question must have been defined as a crime by the penal law. And that is the issue in the criminal case. The state is trying to extend the definition of manslaughter to include the conduct of the parents which allegedly "facilitated" the manslaughter committed by the child. This creates the confusion. Rather than charge the parents for the "facilitation" of the crime, or with a crime like "reckless endangerment" or aiding and abetting or something like that, the state is charging the parents with the actual manslaughter.
Whether that is the proper charge given the evidence is a matter of criminal law about which I am not an expert. But the issue was argued before the court. The court held against the parents, and was affirmed by two higher courts on appeal. Here is the decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals which holds that the lower court did not abuse its discretion in finding The district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the child's decision to shoot four classmates was not a superseding cause because it was foreseeable.
Interestingly, take a look at the finding of the trial court on the issue, which if you did not know otherwise you would think was taken from a torts case (other than the reference to "as alleged by the People"):
The Court concludes that sufficient evidence has been presented to allow a reasonable juror to find factual causation and to allow a reasonable juror to conclude that the deaths of the victims were a direct and natural result of the Defendants’ gross negligence. The Court further concludes that the criminal misconduct of the Defendants’ son was an intervening cause but that a reasonable juror could conclude that his actions were reasonably foreseeable. Therefore, the causal link between Defendants’ actions and their liability for the deaths of the victims, as alleged by the People, is not severed by the actions of their son. A reasonable juror could conclude that the action of the Defendants’ son was a related link in the causal chain.
According to the news, the case is the first instance in which a parent is charged (for her own conduct) with the crime that corresponds to the conduct of the child. Not too long ago, the mother of a 6-year-old who shot a teacher was tried in relation to the incident, but she was tried (and convicted) of child neglect, not with the crime that would correspond to the conduct of the child -- which is what the prosecutors are trying to do in Michigan.
The case is clearly an attempt to send a message and put pressure on parents to take better care or control of a child when there are signs that the child needs it. This may start a trend in prosecutions and it may influence how courts deal with similar issues in torts cases.
You can read coverage about the case here:
NPR (audio)
The Hill (includes video)
The Hill (includes video of the opening statements)
No comments:
Post a Comment