Parental Neglect

Parental Neglect It refers to the act of the parent (step parents, natural parents or anyone who has been serving as parents/guardian to the child) which is criminal or negligent/ommission in nature. The parental negligence can of be of types like failure to provide proper nutrition by the way of food, not giving proper attention towards education, upbringing, medicals, basic amneties. It also includes the situations where the child has been placed in a danger or exposed to abuse or violence.

Op-Ed: Child gets slapped, covering parental negligence
Special

+

Peshawar - A four-year-old boy was slapped twice by a parent/guardian after the child tried to walk out unguarded on a dangerously busy road in University Town area in Peshawar. The elder had left the child alone and he hit the child to cover his own negligence. It happened at about 9:45 am when I got out of my residence to visit an

acquaintance. As I reached the turn along the narrow and dangerously traffic-studded Old Bara Road, a child of about four years, dressed in green, suddenly came out of a shop and ran along the road. As he scuttled by my side, I suddenly became alert to the possible risk as I found traffic all around – cars and rickshaws and bikes. The next moment the child narrowly escaped being hit by a car whose driver was quick enough to steer away from the line whence the child ran. The little boy was startled and afraid. I held him by the hand to make sure he doesn’t get hit by anything. “Is he with you?” asked a middle-aged man, just behind us, who had watched the child’s escape from the accident. I told him he wasn’t and asked the child where he was going, thinking to escort him there. Just then, a man from the opposite side of the road approached us, took the child’s hand in his own, releasing my hand, and slapped the boy fairly hard on his cheek. And he didn’t stop at it; instead, he quickly hit the child again on the other cheek, saying, “I had told you not to come out!” Before he could hit again, which he meant, I held his hand and said, “what are you doing? He is just a child!” Meanwhile the man who had asked me about the child also intervened, telling the parent/guardian not to hurt the child, who by then had shrunk into a mass of fear and confusion. The angry guy stopped hitting the child and took him along. Feeling irritated and somewhat angry at this irresponsible behavior of the child’s guardian, I walk ahead.

I perfectly understand that teaching a child manners is legitimate business and some mild form of punishment may be allowed in extreme cases. But what happened to that child is something that I think was the ultimate exhibition of irresponsibility on behalf of the guardian. Leaving a child of four years alone in a shop along such a busy road where even grownups walk with great care is something I consider no less than criminal negligence. How come that he hit the child for showing risky behavior? It is clear to me, however, that the guy immediately realized his fault and also that the public had become aware of it. To cover his anxiety and escape social disapproval, he quickly – somewhat instinctively – vent his anger out on the child. In my earlier post on Digital Journal about parental responsibility and child torture, I questioned whether it was ethical for parents to let their kids be tortured by others. But this incident showed me first-hand that a bad guardian will also torture the defenseless child him/herself in order to cover the act of leaving a child at risk of accident. The point that demands serious attention is the increasing evidence that children treated roughly in their early years develop aggressive attitudes and behaviors in their adult life. In her book How Children Become Violent, mental health expert Dr. Kathryn Seifert traces the root of violence in adult life to early years’ abuse and neglect of violent people in their childhood. That neglected and harshly treated children grow up to be aggressive was also concluded by a 2010 study that was conducted in 20 large cities in the US. Children getting physical punishment, even if not so frequently, were found to be growing into bullies with disobedient temperaments, and destructive dispositions. It is pretty obvious that the kind of treatment the little boy received before me is exactly what gets the destructive nerve started in children. I can only hope that parents stop treating their children cruelly and learn to accept their own faults to be able to stop the chain of destructiveness from spreading to future generations.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/303799#ixzz1GHpcvgj0

Parental negligence? It has been a few months since I have even opened my children's agendas or signed anything from school. They don't say anything and although I still occasionally ask as a matter of form if they have homework, I haven't seen any for months. This is partly due to the fact that I get home later than they do. By the time I walk through the door, they have already done it. I think. See, I'm making good on my new school year resolution of not having anything do it with

that institution and I think it's time for an update. So, how's the complete ignoring of everything school working for me? Pretty darn good, I must say. So far, nobody has been kicked out, or heaven forbid, demoted a grade. I haven't had any frantic letters asking me permission to put my child in remedial learning. In fact, I have heard nothing at all (which, of course, worries me a little). What is even better, is that I am not flying into a rage every night over stupid homework. Instead, I get home, have dinner and play with my children. Sometimes we'll even read a story or watch an episode of Planet Earth (I love that show). Then they'll go to bed and read for a while more. The reason I bring it up is because there was one of those "required" class meetings last night which I didn't go to. Usually I would send my mother who, in her saintliness, is usually willling to go. But she happens to be out of town, my husband doesn't speak french and well, I had the perfect excuse: I was working late again. It was one of those long drawn out ones where the organizers thought it would be great if the parents got to know one another. So it wasn't just a meeting but also a supper. I can't imagine how long it lasted. Or how much I would have hated it. Still, I feel that guilt has settled on me like a new snow fall. I should want to go hang out with the other kids parents, shouldn't I? I should want to spend hours cramped in midget desks talking for hours and resolving nothing. As you can see, once I think about it for a minute, my guilt also resembles snow in the way that it melts quickly...

Parental negligence? It has been a few months since I have even opened my children's agendas or signed anything from school. They don't say anything and although I still occasionally ask as a matter of form if they have homework, I haven't seen any for months. This is partly due to the fact that I get home later than they do. By the time I walk through the door, they have already done it. I think.

See, I'm making good on my new school year resolution of not having anything do it with that institution and I think it's time for an update. So, how's the complete ignoring of everything school working for me? Pretty darn good, I must say. So far, nobody has been kicked out, or heaven forbid, demoted a grade. I haven't had any frantic letters asking me permission to put my child in remedial learning. In fact, I have heard nothing at all (which, of course, worries me a little). What is even better, is that I am not flying into a rage every night over stupid homework. Instead, I get home, have dinner and play with my children. Sometimes we'll even read a story or watch an episode of Planet Earth (I love that show). Then they'll go to bed and read for a while more. The reason I bring it up is because there was one of those "required" class meetings last night which I didn't go to. Usually I would send my mother who, in her saintliness, is usually willling to go. But she happens to be out of town, my husband doesn't speak french and well, I had the perfect excuse: I was working late again. It was one of those long drawn out ones where the organizers thought it would be great if the parents got to know one another. So it wasn't just a meeting but also a supper. I can't imagine how long it lasted. Or how much I would have hated it. Still, I feel that guilt has settled on me like a new snow fall. I should want to go hang out with the other kids parents, shouldn't I? I should want to spend hours cramped in midget desks talking for hours and resolving nothing. As you can see, once I think about it for a minute, my guilt also resembles snow in the way that it melts quickly...
Usually when a child has been injured in an accident, the conduct of the child's parents is called into question. Typically the insurance company will try to argue that the child was injured in large part due to the parents' failure to adequately supervise the child. But this argument often fails. This is because Washington has adopted what is called the Parental Immunity Doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligent parent is immune from liability for injuries caused to the child unless the parent was acting outside his or her parental capacity, or if the child's injuries were caused by a parent's willful and wanton misconduct. The doctrine is based upon the public policy of maintaining family tranquility and avoiding the fear of undermining a parent's control and authority over his or her children. An exception to the Parental Immunity Doctrine is when the child's injuries are due to a parent's negligent driving. That means a child is still permitted to pursue a legal claim against his parent if the injuries arose from

a car accident that was caused by the parent. The doctrine also does not apply to those parents who engage in willful and wanton misconduct. Washington law has defined the phrase "willful and wanton misconduct" to mean the parent's intentional act or intentional failure to act in disregard of a known peril or hazard. This can be a difficult burden to prove. While the standard of negligence implies inadvertence or carelessness, the term willfulness suggests premeditation or formed intention in the face of known circumstances that would inform a reasonable parent of the highly dangerous nature of that conduct. Essentially a parent's conduct must rise to the level of intentional or reckless conduct or extreme indifference that had a high likelihood to cause harm to the child. The courts in Washington have rejected numerous attempts to hold a parent legally responsible for injuries caused to the child based on allegations of inadequate supervision. But recently the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a step-parent may not be protected under the Parental Immunity Doctrine if that step-parent was not truly acting as a parent to the child. In that case, the step-parent fell asleep and the 3-year-old step-daughter fell into the family swimming pool and drowned. It turned out the step-parent had previously taken out a life insurance policy on the child, an unusual action by a step-parent to say the least. Also, the step-parent had only recently married the child's mother so there was a factual question of whether the step-parent had sufficient time to form a parent-child relationship and thus be entitled to the protection of the Parental Immunity Doctrine. In another case the parents of a severely injured child were immune even though they were fully aware of the hazard which injured their child and had previously warned him to stay away.

In another case a father was held immune when his 3 year-old son was severely burned in a fire that the father had started in the back yard and then left the child alone. But it is important to remember that the Parental Immunity Doctrine only protects negligent conduct in certain situations. A parent may still be legally and financially responsible for intentional conduct that harms the child, like physical and sexual abuse.

-----Christopher M. Davis is a Seattle attorney focusing personal injury cases. He is also known as a child accident lawyer and has written the the book 'Little Kids, Big Accidents' as a resource for parents of injured children. Learn more about Mr. Davis at http://www.DavisLawGroupSeattle.com and get info on Little Kids, Big Accidents at http://www.childaccidentbook.com.
provided by Kosmix

Report this article This article is free for republishing Source: http://www.articlealley.com/article_769589_18.html About the Author Occupation: Attorney, Lawyer Washington attorney Christopher Michael Davis has been representing individuals in accident cases and against insurance companies since 1994. In 2006, he was named a Rising Star Attorney by Washington Law & Politics magazine (this recognition is given only to the top 2.5% of lawyers age 40 and under in Washington State). In 2007, Washington Law & Politics named Mr. Davis a Super

Lawyer (the top 5% of lawyers in Washington). Mr. Davis speaks at Continuing Legal Education seminars on topics related to personal injury. He teaches and instructs other lawyers in Washington State on topics such as jury selection, proving damages and developing winning trial techniques. Mr. Davis has been licensed to practice law in Washington State since 1993. He has obtained millions of dollars in verdicts and settlements for his clients. Mr. Davis is a member of numerous professional organizations, including the Washington State Trial Lawyers Association, American Association for Justice, and the North American Brain Injury Society. Learn more about Mr. Davis by visiting www.injurytriallawyer.com http://www.injurytriallawyer.com

Read more at http://www.articlealley.com/article_769589_18.html? ktrack=kcplink

Juvenile delinquency is caused by parental negligence. Give reason and example?
what is the reason and example
• •

5 years ago Report Abuse

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
My mother started having children when she was 20, the last one being born when she was 28. There are 4 of us children. My mother was a welfare rat, sucking the system dry. She never worked just sat around demanded her children to wait on her hand and foot. None of my siblings or myself talk to her more than we have to because of the negligence that she showed us when we were younger. My father spent most of his life in prison or jail. He passed away a couple of years ago. My two older sisters are hookers. They were both molested by my father. Both sisters left home at 16. Both got into drugs. My oldest sister has a 8 page criminal record. My other sister has a trail of petty crimes (bad checks). My mother was often phsyically abusive to them. My mother was very controlling of them. My 14 year old brother (he is now 23) was sentenced to life in prison without parole for a murder that he supposedly did. At 11 my brother was running the streets smoking dope, using acid, and coke and drinking (I do not mean soda either). he had been in trouble with the law before for b&e, skiping school, damage to personal property, etc. He had also been in and out of the foster care and justice system. While in prison he has gotten his life together by reciving counseling and his GED.

I was molested by her friend when I was 8. It continued until I was 14. When the truth came out, I was scared to tell her for fear that she would beat me. Anyway, the truth came out, and she was mad. I then ran away from home many times before leaving at age 15. I started smoking and shop lifting at 14, drinking and drugs at 15, and sex at 16. I was pregnant by my fourth partner at 17 (just 6 months later). I later had a miscarriage (after the baby's father beat me) and was told that I would never be able to have any kids. At 19 and being a high school drop out, I met my first husband and was married for 8 weeks (after dating for 4 months), resulting in a almost 6 year old little girl. I later met my soon to be ex husband. After being married to him and letting him treat me like crap and cheating on me for 4 years, I am calling it quits. I believe that juvenile delinquency is caused by parental negligence, but I also believe that it cares over to adulthood. Yes as an adult you are responsible for you life, but sometimes, you are just stuck in that lifestyle that you have no clue on how to escape it. Either the criminal lifestyle will kill you or you will kill yourself with the wat that you behave. While all 3 of my siblings have a criminal record and only one with a high school diploma, I was lucky to only have one juvenile offence, that is now off my record. Now that I am 26, I have been off drugs for almost 6 years. I do drink sometimes and I still smoke, both are things that I will probably never give up. I am overweight and suffer depression. But, I am a good mom. I give my daughter the life that I never had. I look back on my life as a learning experience. Something my daughter will never have to deal with.
• •

5 years ago Report Abuse

100% 1 Vote

Not the right answer? Try Yahoo! Search
Search Yahoo! for
þÿ

Search

Related Searches:
• • • •

parental neglect proving parental negligence effects of parental negligence juvenile delinquency is caused by parental negligence

There are currently no comments for this question. * You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.

Other Answers (1)

•

by libradol... Member since: February 03, 2006 Total points: 319 (Level 2)
o o

Add Contact Block

This is not always the case. Kids today are very strong-willed and exposed to a lot. The best parents can still have a juvenile delinquent. I know because I am a very attentive and loving parent yet my son wants to "belong" so he does bad things. Parental negligence may the case sometimes but not always. I take that you don't have kids because even preacher's kids are delinquent!

neg·li·gence    ˈnɛg lɪ dʒənsShow Spelled[neg-li-juh ns]
–noun

Show IPA

1. the quality, fact, or result of being negligent; neglect: negligence in discharging one's responsibilities. 2. an instance of being negligent: a downfall brought about by many negligences. 3. Law . the failure to exercise that degree of care that, in the circumstances, the law requires for the protection of other persons or those interests of other persons that may be injuriously affected by the want of such care.
–adjective

4. Law . pertaining to or involving a civil action for compensation for damages filed by a person who claims to have suffered an injury or loss in an accident caused by another's negligence: a negligence suit; a large negligence award.

Origin: 1300–50; Middle English, variant of necligence < Latin necligentia. See negligent, -ence —Related forms
non·neg·li·gence, noun o·ver·neg·li·gence, noun pre·neg·li·gence, noun su·per·neg·li·gence, noun

—Synonyms 1. See neglect.
Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2011. Cite This Source

|
Link To negligence

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »

Related Words for : negligence

carelessness, neglect, nonperformance, neglectfulness View more related words »

World English Dictionary
negligence (ˈnɛɡlɪdʒəns)

—n 1. the state or quality of being negligent

2. a negligent act 3. law a civil wrong whereby a person or party is in breach of a legal duty of care to another which results in loss or injury to the claimant

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition 2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009 Cite This Source

Word Origin & History
negligence mid-14c., from L. neclegentia, neglegentia "carelessness, heedlessness," from neglegentem (nom. neglegens ), prp. of neglegere "to neglect" (see neglect).
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper Cite This Source

Legal Dictionary
Main Entry: neg·li·gence Pronunciation: 'ne-gli-j&ns Function: noun : failure to exercise the degree of care expected of a person of ordinary prudence in like circumstances in protecting others from a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm in a particular situation; also : conduct that reflects this failure called also ordinary negligence simple negligence —compare ABUSE 2, DUE CARE, INTENT NOTE: Negligence may render one civilly and sometimes criminally liable for resulting injuries. collateral negligence : negligence on the part of an independent contractor that is not connected with a manner of working or risk ordinarily associated with particular work and for which the employer of the contractor is not liable com·par·a·tive negligence
/k&m-'par-&-tiv-/

1 a : negligence of one among multiple parties involved in an injury that is measured (as in percentages) according to the degree of its contribution to the injury comparative negligence of the plaintiff> b : a doctrine, rule, or method of apportioning liability and damages in tort law: negligence and damages are

determined by reference to the proportionate fault of the plaintiff and defendant with the negligence of the plaintiff not constituting an absolute bar to recovery from the defendant —compare CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE in this entry NOTE: The great majority of states have replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence with that of comparative negligence. 2 : an affirmative defense alleging comparative negligence by the plaintiff contributory negligence 1 : negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue 2 : a now largely abolished doctrine in tort law: negligence on the part of a plaintiff that contributed to the injury at issue will bar recovery from the defendant; also : an affirmative defense based on this doctrine criminal negligence : a gross deviation from the standard of care expected of a reasonable person that is manifest in a failure to protect others from a risk (as of death) deriving from one's conduct and that renders one criminally liable called also culpable negligence —compare GROSS NEGLIGENCE in this entry gross negligence : negligence that is marked by conduct that presents an unreasonably high degree of risk to others and by a failure to exercise even the slightest care in protecting them from it and that is sometimes associated with conscious and willful indifference to their rights —see also RECKLESSNESS —compare CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE in this entry negligence per se
/-"p&r-'sA, -'sE/

: negligence that consists of a violation of a statute esp. designed to protect the public safety NOTE: Recovery may be had on a theory of negligence per se when the harm resulting from the violation is the type that the statute is designed to prevent, the plaintiff is a member of the class of persons sought to be protected by the statute, and the violation is the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. ordinary negligence : NEGLIGENCE passive negligence : failure to do something (as to discover a dangerous condition on one's property) that is not a breach of an affirmative duty and that in combination with another's act is a cause of injury

simple negligence : NEGLIGENCE slight negligence : failure to exercise the great degree of care typical of an extraordinarily prudent person NOTE: The category of slight negligence is used much less frequently than ordinary negligence and gross negligence, the other members of a three-level classification that was formerly prevalent.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. Cite This Source

Famous Quotations
negligence "The sure characteristic of a sound and strong mind is, ..." "The popularity of disaster movies ... expresses a colle..." "The Fashionable World is grown free and easie; our Mann..." "They that have grown old in a single state are generall..." "Without a little negligence, life would be intolerable."

Instructions M Civ JI 13.01 Physical Disability M Civ JI 13.02 Intoxication as Affecting Negligence M Civ JI 13.03 Mental Illness—Adult M Civ JI 13.04 Duty of One in Imminent Peril and Responsibility of the Person Causing the Perilous Situation [Recommend No Instruction] M Civ JI 13.05 Unavoidable Accident [Recommend No Instruction] M Civ JI 13.06 Assumption of Risk [No Instruction Prepared] M Civ JI 13.07 Attempted Rescue of One in Imminent Peril by a Person Who Did Not Cause Such Peril [Instruction Deleted] M Civ JI 13.08 Presumption That Child Under Seven Years is Incapable of Negligence M Civ JI 13.09 Effect of Parent's Negligence on Claim of Child

M Civ JI 13.01 Physical Disability
One who is ill or otherwise physically disabled is required to use the same degree of care that a reasonably careful person who has the same illness or physical disability would use.

Note on Use This instruction does not apply where voluntary intoxication or mental illness is involved. For the appropriate instructions in those cases see M Civ JI 13.02 and M Civ JI 13.03. Comment Physical handicaps and infirmities, such as blindness, deafness, short stature, a clubfoot, or the weakness of age or sex, are treated as part of the circumstances under which a reasonable person must act. Thus the standard of conduct for a blind person becomes that of a reasonable person who is blind. Restatement (Second) of Torts §283 C, at 18. The same allowance is made for physical illness. Thus a heart attack or a temporary dizziness due to a fever or nausea or other similar illnesses is regarded merely as circumstances to be taken into account in determining what the reasonable person would do. Id. This rule has been recognized in Michigan. See Daniels v Clegg, 28 Mich 32, 41 (1873); Clemens v Sault Ste Marie, 289 Mich 254, 256; 286 NW 232, 233–234 (1939). The rule has been applied in the following Michigan cases: Armstrong v Cook, 250 Mich 180; 229 NW 433 (1930) (fainting); Covert v Randall, 298 Mich 38, 42; 298 NW 396, 397 (1941) (deaf mute); and Jakubiec v Hasty, 337 Mich 205, 212; 59 NW2d 385, 388 (1953) (deaf mute). TOP

M Civ JI 13.02 Intoxication as Affecting Negligence
It has been claimed that [name] had been drinking [alcoholic beverage]. According to the law, one who voluntarily impairs his or her abilities by drinking is held to the same standard of care as a person whose abilities have not been impaired by drinking. It is for you to decide whether [name]’s conduct was, in fact, affected by drinking and whether, as a result, [he / she] failed to exercise the care of a reasonably careful person under the circumstances which you find existed in this case. Note on Use If it is claimed that a statute or ordinance was violated, give appropriate instructions from M Civ JI 12.01, 12.03 and 12.04. This instruction may be inappropriate where a person is suffering from delirium tremors rather than intoxication. Thornton v City of Flint, 39 Mich App 260; 197 NW2d 485 (1972). Comment Michigan recognizes that intoxication is a factor the jury may consider in deciding whether a person is negligent or contributorily negligent. Devlin v Morse, 254 Mich 113; 235 NW 812 (1931). One who voluntarily disables himself or herself through the consumption of alcoholic beverages is nevertheless held to the same standard of conduct as a reasonably careful person who is sober. See Strand v Chicago & W M R Co, 67 Mich 380; 34 NW 712 (1887). It is for the jury to decide whether an intoxicated person exercised reasonable care. Fors v LaFreniere, 284 Mich 5, 11; 278 NW 743, 745 (1938). TOP

M Civ JI 13.03 Mental Illness—Adult
An adult who is disabled by reason of mental illness must still observe the same standard of care which a normal and reasonably careful person would exercise under the circumstances which existed in this case. Comment No Michigan cases have been found on this subject. However, the general rule outside of Michigan is that unless the actor is a child, mental illness does not relieve him or her from liability for conduct which does not conform to the standards of a reasonable person under like circumstances. Restatement (Second) of Torts §283 B, at 16–17. History M Civ JI 13.03 is a revision of SJI 13.03. Amended February 1, 1981. TOP

M Civ JI 13.04 Duty of One in Imminent Peril and Responsibility of the Person Causing the Perilous Situation [Recommend No Instruction]
Comment The committee recommends that no instruction be given on either the duty of one in imminent peril or the responsibility of the person causing the perilous situation. The degree of care required of one confronted with imminent peril does not vary merely because of the unusual circumstances. The standard is neither higher nor lower, the inquiry remaining the same as to whether the one sought to be charged with negligence or contributory negligence acted as a reasonably careful person would act under the same or similar circumstances. Triestram v Way, 286 Mich 13, 17; 281 NW 420, 421 (1938). The liability of one causing a perilous situation is governed by the general principles of negligence law. The committee recommends that no special instruction be given concerning this matter. The principles suggested are treated in part by instructions on negligence (M Civ JI 10.02 and 11.01) and sudden emergency (M Civ JI 12.02). Any additional instructions may be misleading and argumentative and the matter should be left for argument by counsel. TOP

M Civ JI 13.05 Unavoidable Accident [Recommend No Instruction]
Comment The committee recommends that no instruction be given on “unavoidable accident.”

The Michigan Supreme Court has stated that in most cases an instruction that the “accident” was “unavoidable” constitutes a false and immaterial issue. Lober v Sklar, 357 Mich 166, 170; 97 NW2d 617, 619 (1959); see also McClarren v Buck, 343 Mich 300, 303; 72 NW2d 31, 32 (1955). TOP

M Civ JI 13.06 Assumption of Risk [No Instruction Prepared]
Comment The committee has prepared no instruction on “assumption of risk.” Since Felgner v Anderson, 375 Mich 23; 133 NW2d 136 (1965), was decided, the doctrine of assumption of risk has applied only in cases between employee and employer for injuries incurred in the course of employment where the statutory bar of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act is not applicable, and in cases where it is claimed there has been an express contractual assumption of risk. These situations arise infrequently and the principles involved have not been sufficiently defined to permit the drafting of appropriate instructions. TOP

M Civ JI 13.07 Attempted Rescue of One in Imminent Peril by a Person Who Did Not Cause Such Peril [Instruction Deleted]
Comment Former M Civ JI 13.07 was deleted because the subject matter of that instruction is covered by the general negligence instructions. See Solomon v Shuell, 435 Mich 104; 457 NW2d 669 (1990). History M Civ JI 13.07 was added September 1980. Deleted February 1991. TOP

M Civ JI 13.08 Presumption That Child Under Seven Years Is Incapable of Negligence
You must not consider whether there was negligence on the part of [name of child], because, under the law, a child of [his / her] age cannot be charged with negligence. Note on Use This instruction may be used only when the plaintiff was under seven at the time of the occurrence. If there is a jury issue as to the child’s age, this instruction must be modified. Comment Before Michigan’s adoption of comparative negligence in Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638; 275 NW2d 511 (1979), it was held that a child under seven cannot be guilty of contributory negligence. Baker v Alt, 374 Mich 492; 132 NW2d 614 (1965). History

M Civ JI 13.08 is a revision of SJI 11.03. Amended September 1980. TOP

M Civ JI 13.09 Effect of Parent’s Negligence on Claim of Child
You must not consider whether there was negligence on the part of [name of child]’s parents, because, under the law, any negligence on the part of the parents cannot affect a claim on behalf of the child. Note on Use There are no reported decisions on the impact, if any, of MCL 600.2957 in a case involving a claim for a child’s injury. If the court determines that a parent can be named as a nonparty under MCL 600.2957, then this instruction should not be given. The cases discussed in this use note and the comment were all decided prior to the enactment of MCL 600.2957. This is a cautionary instruction that is to be used only in a case involving a claim on behalf of an injured child in which the parent’s negligence is not a defense to the child’s claim but the parent’s negligence has been improperly injected into the lawsuit in the evidence or in argument of counsel. Conners v Benjamin I Magid, Inc, 353 Mich 628; 91 NW2d 875 (1958); Elbert v Saginaw, 363 Mich 463; 109 NW2d 879 (1961). However at least one Michigan case has held that a cautionary instruction will not cure the error of injecting parental negligence in a lawsuit in which it is not a defense. Lapasinskas v Quick, 17 Mich App 733; 170 NW2d 318 (1969). See the comment below for Michigan case law on the legal effect of a parent’s negligence in cases involving the injury or death of a child. Comment Prior to the adoption of comparative negligence in Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638; 275 NW2d 511 (1979), Michigan cases held that a parent’s negligence may not be imputed to a child so as to bar the child’s cause of action for his or her injuries. Conners; Elbert; Nielsen v Henry H Stevens, Inc, 359 Mich 130; 101 NW2d 284 (1960). In a case involving a claim on behalf of a child for the child’s injuries that was consolidated for trial with the parent’s claim for consequential damages due to injury to the child, the court distinguished between the child’s case in which the parent’s negligence is not a defense and the parent’s cause of action for which the parent’s own negligence is a defense. Nielsen, 359 Mich at 133–137; 101 NW2d at 287–289 (concurring opinion of Justice Black). (Because of this distinction and the possibility of prejudicing the child’s case, Justice Black cautioned against the dangers of consolidation.) The distinction in the treatment of parental negligence between the child’s cause of action and the parent’s cause of action has been applied in cases involving the death of a child. In a case in which the child did not die instantly, where the cause of action was for the child’s own damages prior to death (case brought under the former Survival Act), the court held that the mother’s negligence is not a defense even though the parents were the sole heirs and distributees of the child’s estate. Love v Detroit J & C R Co, 170 Mich 1; 135 NW 963 (1912). But where the cause of action was brought under the former Death Act for a parent’s consequential damages due to the death of a child, courts have held that a parent’s negligence is a defense, at least to the extent of his or her own recovery. Feldman v Detroit United R Co, 162 Mich 486; 127 NW 687 (1910); McCann v Detroit, 234 Mich 268; 207 NW 923 (1926); Flintoff v Muskegon Traction & Lighting Co, 208 Mich 527; 175 NW 438 (1919). See McCann for a discussion of the distinction between Death and Survival Act cases. This distinction in the treatment of parental negligence in cases involving the death of a child survived both the consolidation of the former Death and Survival Acts into the Wrongful Death Act and the

adoption of comparative negligence. In Byrne v Schneider’s Iron & Metal, Inc, 190 Mich App 176; 475 NW2d 854 (1991), the court held that the parent’s negligence cannot reduce an award to the estate for the conscious pain and suffering of the child (even though such award will inure to the benefit of the parents), but the parent’s negligence can reduce a parent’s recovery for the loss of the deceased child’s services and society and companionship: We conclude that the reasoning set forth in Feldman, McCann, and Nielsen is still persuasive; it remains in keeping with the objective of a fair apportionment of damages under the doctrine of comparative negligence. See Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638; 275 NW2d 511 (1979). The parent’s comparative negligence is relevant under the wrongful death statute where recovery is sought for damages sustained by the parent because of the wrongful death of the child. However, the comparative negligence of the parent may not be imputed to the recovery attributable to the child’s damages. Byrne, 190 Mich App at 189; 475 NW2d at 860. History M Civ JI 13.09 was SJI 11.04. TOP Usually when a child has been injured in an accident, the conduct of the child's parents is called into question. Typically the insurance company will try to argue that the child was injured in large part due to the parents' failure to adequately supervise the child. But this argument often fails. This is because Washington has adopted what is called the Parental Immunity Doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligent parent is immune from liability for injuries caused to the child unless the parent was acting outside his or her parental capacity, or if the child's injuries were caused by a parent's willful and wanton misconduct. The doctrine is based upon the public policy of maintaining family tranquility and avoiding the fear of undermining a parent's control and authority over his or her children. An exception to the Parental Immunity Doctrine is when the child's injuries are due to a parent's negligent driving. That means a child is still permitted to pursue a legal claim against his parent if the injuries arose from a car accident that was caused by the parent. The doctrine also does not apply to those parents who engage in willful and wanton misconduct. Washington law has defined the phrase "willful and wanton misconduct" to mean the parent's intentional act or intentional failure to act in disregard of a known peril or hazard. This can be a difficult burden to prove. While the standard of negligence implies inadvertence or carelessness, the term willfulness suggests premeditation or formed intention in the face of known circumstances that would inform a reasonable parent of the highly dangerous nature of that conduct. Essentially a parent's conduct must rise to the level of intentional or reckless conduct or extreme indifference that had a high likelihood to cause harm to the child. The courts in Washington have rejected numerous attempts to hold a parent legally responsible for injuries caused to the child based on allegations of inadequate supervision. But recently the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a step-parent may not be protected under the Parental Immunity Doctrine if that step-parent was not truly acting as a parent to the child. In that case, the step-parent fell asleep and the 3-year-old step-daughter fell into the family swimming pool and drowned. It turned out the step-parent had previously taken out a life insurance policy on the child, an unusual action by a step-parent to say the least. Also, the step-parent had only recently married the child's mother so there was a factual question of whether the step-parent had sufficient time to form a parent-child relationship and thus be entitled to the protection of the Parental Immunity Doctrine. In another case the parents of a severely injured child were immune even though they were fully aware of the hazard which injured their child and had previously warned him to stay away. In another case a father was held immune when his 3 year-old son was severely burned in a fire that the father had started in the back yard and then left the child alone. But it is important to remember that the Parental Immunity Doctrine only protects negligent conduct in certain situations. A parent may still be legally and financially responsible for intentional conduct that harms the child, like physical and sexual abuse.

Christopher M. Davis is a Seattle attorney focusing personal injury cases. He is also known as a child accident lawyer and has written the the book 'Little Kids, Big Accidents' as a resource for parents of injured children. Learn more about Mr. Davis at http://www.DavisLawGroupSeattle.com and get info on Little Kids, Big Accidents at http://www.childaccidentbook.com

Parental Negligence and Parental Immunity in Child Accident Cases
Get Your FREE Copy of Little Kids, Big Accidents

In Little Kids, Big Accidents Seattle child injury attorney Christopher M. Davis offers basic facts about typical accident claims involving children; defines the legal and settlement process for child injury claims; gives tips on dealing with insurance companies; offers insight into how to determine the value of a child injury claim; and discusses common questions and legal issues that are often present in cases involving children. Davis also helps parents understand the pros and cons of hiring an attorney to represent their child. Click here to order your complimentary copy.
Usually when a child has been injured in an accident, the conduct of the child's parents is called into question. Typically the insurance company will try to argue that the child was injured in large part due to the parents' failure to adequately supervise the child. But this argument often fails. This is because Washington has adopted what is called the Parental Immunity Doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligent parent is immune from liability for injuries caused to the child unless the parent was acting outside his or her parental capacity, or if the child's injuries were caused by a parent's willful and wanton misconduct. The doctrine is based upon the public policy of maintaining family tranquility and avoiding the fear of undermining a parent's control and authority over his or her children. An exception to the Parental Immunity Doctrine is when the child's injuries are due to a parent's negligent driving. That means a child is still permitted to pursue a legal claim against his parent if the injuries arose from a car accident that was caused by the parent. The doctrine also does not apply to those parents who engage in willful and wanton misconduct. Washington law has defined the phrase "willful and wanton misconduct" to mean the parent's intentional act or intentional failure to act in disregard of a known peril or hazard. This can be a difficult burden to prove. While the standard of negligence implies inadvertence or carelessness, the term willfulness suggests premeditation or formed intention in the face of known circumstances that would inform a reasonable parent of the highly dangerous nature of that conduct. Essentially a parent's conduct must rise to the level of intentional or reckless conduct or extreme indifference that had a high likelihood to cause harm to the child.

The courts in Washington have rejected numerous attempts to hold a parent legally responsible for injuries caused to the child based on allegations of inadequate supervision. But recently the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a step-parent may not be protected under the Parental Immunity Doctrine if that step-parent was not truly acting as a parent to the child. In that case, the step-parent fell asleep and the 3-year-old step-daughter fell into the family swimming pool and drowned. It turned out the step-parent had previously taken out a life insurance policy on the child, an unusual action by a step-parent to say the least. Also, the step-parent had only recently married the child's mother so there was a factual question of whether the step-parent had sufficient time to form a parent-child relationship and thus be entitled to the protection of the Parental Immunity Doctrine. In another case the parents of a severely injured child were immune even though they were fully aware of the hazard which injured their child and had previously warned him to stay away. In another case a father was held immune when his 3 year-old son was severely burned in a fire that the father had started in the back yard and then left the child alone. But it is important to remember that the Parental Immunity Doctrine only protects negligent conduct in certain situations. A parent may still be legally and financially responsible for intentional conduct that harms the child, like physical and sexual abuse.

Parental Negligence and Parental Immunity in Child Accident Cases
Get Your FREE Copy of Little Kids, Big Accidents

In Little Kids, Big Accidents Seattle child injury attorney Christopher M. Davis offers basic facts about typical accident claims involving children; defines the legal and settlement process for child injury claims; gives tips on dealing with insurance companies; offers insight into how to determine the value of a child injury claim; and discusses common questions and legal issues that are often present in cases involving children. Davis also helps parents understand the pros and cons of hiring an attorney to represent their child. Click here to order your complimentary copy.
Usually when a child has been injured in an accident, the conduct of the child's parents is called into question. Typically the insurance company will try to argue that the child was injured in large part due to the parents' failure to adequately supervise the child. But this argument often fails. This is because Washington has adopted what is called the Parental Immunity Doctrine. Under this doctrine, a negligent parent is immune from liability for injuries caused to the child unless the

parent was acting outside his or her parental capacity, or if the child's injuries were caused by a parent's willful and wanton misconduct. The doctrine is based upon the public policy of maintaining family tranquility and avoiding the fear of undermining a parent's control and authority over his or her children. An exception to the Parental Immunity Doctrine is when the child's injuries are due to a parent's negligent driving. That means a child is still permitted to pursue a legal claim against his parent if the injuries arose from a car accident that was caused by the parent. The doctrine also does not apply to those parents who engage in willful and wanton misconduct. Washington law has defined the phrase "willful and wanton misconduct" to mean the parent's intentional act or intentional failure to act in disregard of a known peril or hazard. This can be a difficult burden to prove. While the standard of negligence implies inadvertence or carelessness, the term willfulness suggests premeditation or formed intention in the face of known circumstances that would inform a reasonable parent of the highly dangerous nature of that conduct. Essentially a parent's conduct must rise to the level of intentional or reckless conduct or extreme indifference that had a high likelihood to cause harm to the child. The courts in Washington have rejected numerous attempts to hold a parent legally responsible for injuries caused to the child based on allegations of inadequate supervision. But recently the Washington Supreme Court ruled that a step-parent may not be protected under the Parental Immunity Doctrine if that step-parent was not truly acting as a parent to the child. In that case, the step-parent fell asleep and the 3-year-old step-daughter fell into the family swimming pool and drowned. It turned out the step-parent had previously taken out a life insurance policy on the child, an unusual action by a step-parent to say the least. Also, the step-parent had only recently married the child's mother so there was a factual question of whether the step-parent had sufficient time to form a parent-child relationship and thus be entitled to the protection of the Parental Immunity Doctrine. In another case the parents of a severely injured child were immune even though they were fully aware of the hazard which injured their child and had previously warned him to stay away. In another case a father was held immune when his 3 year-old son was severely burned in a fire that the father had started in the back yard and then left the child alone. But it is important to remember that the Parental Immunity Doctrine only protects negligent conduct in certain situations. A parent may still be legally and financially responsible for intentional conduct that harms the child, like physical and sexual abuse.

Does parental negligence is the main cause of moral decline among teenagers?
• •

6 days ago Report Abuse

by Ogill Member since:

July 23, 2009 Total points: 2,975 (Level 4)
• •

Add Contact Block

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters
i like this question! i heard our parents have little effect on us so i think moral decline doesn't have much to do with our parents negligence , and i guess this opinion is very controversial because most psychologist believe parents have a lot to do with how a person ends up behaving or ends up thinking. sometimes psychologists base almost everything on this. i have heard of there being all sorts of book on this.im not a psychologist , but i believe there are a lot of beliefs put out there solely for brainwashing, because if you get a supposed smart person thinking a certain way others that are not supposed smart people will follow. i know of someone that i guess got to be all screwed up and this persons brother got to be ok. i think our behaviour has more to do with the people we associate with our peers. i guess we can act a certain way with our friends and then turn around and act the totally opposite with our parents.maybe that whole blaming the parent is a cop out.i have to admit i use to think this whole parent effecting the child thing was true , but i guess that was simply because i was just taking in everything that they tell me, just following others beliefs maybe.i guess i have seen many cases where there are 2 siblings and one is the supposed bad and the other is the supposed good. i guess that's evidence for me. maybe i try to see the things that are overlooked. nowadays i guess all that niceness from the past has been sort of thrown out the window. i heard that stuff has a lot do with forces... i heard that forces want us to be empty just to accommodate their purposes, but i guess lets not get into that. yeah so maybe it doesn't really have to do with ones parents i think our peers effect us alot , i know of one person that would behave totally different and do things that they wouldnt do just because of the peers its as if we start getting use to not being ourselves and end up forgetting about who we are, maybe... hope that helps. Source(s): life
• •

6 days ago Report Abuse

100% 1 Vote

Not the right answer? Try Yahoo! Search
Search Yahoo! for
þÿ

Search

Related Searches:
• • • •

parental neglect proving parental negligence effects of parental negligence juvenile delinquency is caused by parental negligence

There are currently no comments for this question. * You must be logged into Answers to add comments. Sign in or Register.
Other Answers (4)

•

by Nature Lover Member since: January 16, 2009 Total points: 5,099 (Level 5)
o o

Add Contact Block

It certainly is, although not entirely. This is happening, because parents themselves had a lot of baggage when they became parents: young age, lack of character, broken homes, poor education foundation which starts at home, lack of goals in life apparently justified by society degrading moral life. Other factors arise from the teens themselves, such as selfishness, lack of respect for others from the same and opposite sex, which lead them into a lack of own self-respect, as well as violence, immaturity, and absence of responsibility.
o o

6 days ago Report Abuse

0% 0 Votes

•

by tINA Member since: March 04, 2011 Total points:

139 (Level 1)
o o

Add Contact Block

I believe to a certain extent they do, if you don't "educate" / teach your kids respect boundries limitations and independence, however even as kids/children we had our own personalitys and it is difficult to control someone. I believe the environment of the teens/children has a lot to do with the person they become
o o

6 days ago Report Abuse

0% 0 Votes

•

by Kendra Hoder Member since: July 29, 2010 Total points: 764 (Level 2)
o o

Add Contact Block

Here's the exact number of generations who thought the proceeding generation of teenagers were in moral decline...all of them.
o o

6 days ago Report Abuse

0% 0 Votes

•

by void Member since: July 24, 2008 Total points: 12,155 (Level 6)
o o

Add Contact Block

Certainly.Parents are responsible for their off shoots.
o o

6 days ago Report Abuse

0% 0 Votes

February 11, 2011 • 9:17 pm

Parental Negligence in Disney World Strikes Again!!!!
How ridiculous is this lawsuit against Disney World? Here is what happened: A 4-year-old burned his mouth on nacho cheese and the parents are blaming Disney World for his burns. Did they not check the temperature of the hot food before giving it to their child? I have two toddlers and whenever I order something that is supposed to be hot, I check it against my lip before giving it to my child. I know that they just put food in their mouths without any thought to temperature. This child received severe burns. The lawyers are stating that the jury will be sympathetic because the victim is a child. I completely agree that this child should not be held responsible for checking the temperature of the food before he ate it. I also believe that Disney World is not responsible for selling hot food that was carelessly given to a child by his parents. The parents are responsible for this injury. There was no carelessness on behalf of Disney, just negligence on behalf of the parents! As if this is not ridiculous enough, the parents are not disclosing the amount that they are suing the theme park for. Sounds to me like the parents are looking for a big score for their own carelessness. They may have even done this on purpose. The burn was pretty severe, not a burn that one would expect from any sort of nacho cheese sauce at any temperature, especially since the parents would have wiped the child’s mouth and put ice on it immediately…unless they were negligent in their first aid as well as their duty to ensure their child was eating temperature appropriate foods.

negligence
Medical malpractice The failure or alleged failure on the part of a physician or other health care provider to exercise ordinary, reasonable, usual, or expected care, prudence, or skill–that would usually and customarily be exercised by other reputable physicians treating similar Pts–in performing a legally recognized duty, resulting in forseeable harm, injury or loss to another; negligence may be an act of omission–ie, unintentional, or commission–ie, intentional, characterized by inattention, recklessness, inadvertence, thoughtlessness, or wantonness. See Adverse event, Comparative negligence, Contributory negligence, Gross negligence, Malpractice, Wanton negligence, Willful negligence. Cf Recklessness. Negligence, required elements Duty A recognized relationship between Pt and physician Breach Failure of a medical practitioner to practice in accordance with standard of care Proximate cause The plaintiff must show that injury is reasonably connected to physician's action Damages Plaintiff must show that alleged loss or damage has a quantifiable value such that a monetary payment can be made APLM 1997; 121:252

negligence

[neg′lijens] Etymology: L, negligentia, carelessness

(in law) the commission of an act that a prudent person would not have done or the omission of a duty that a prudent person would have fulfilled, resulting in injury or harm to another person. In particular, in a malpractice suit, a professional person is negligent if harm to a client results from such an act or such failure to act, but it must be proved that other prudent members of the same profession would ordinarily have acted differently under the same circumstances. Negligence may be misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance.
Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.

negligence (neg´lij ns),
n the failure to observe, for the protection of another person, the degree of care and vigilance that the circumstances demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. negligence, contributory, n negligence by an injured party that combines as a proximate cause with the negligence of the injurer in producing the injury. May bar recovery or mitigate damages. negligence, imputed, n the principle that places the responsibility for negligence on a person other than the one that was directly negligent. This transfer of responsibility is based on some special relationship of the parties, such as parent and child or principal and agent (e.g., a dental professional may be responsible for the negligence of a dental assistant).

Mosby's Dental Dictionary, 2nd edition. © 2008 Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.

negligence
in law, the failure to do something that a reasonable person of ordinary prudence would do in a certain situation or the doing of something that such a person would not do. Negligence may provide the basis for a lawsuit when there is a legal duty, as the duty of a veterinarian, to provide reasonable care to patients and when the negligence results in damage to the patient.

contributory negligence a defense against a negligence suit, in which evidence is presented that the client contributed to the unsatisfactory outcome of a case by being negligent himself/herself, e.g. by not returning the animal for further treatment soon enough.