An Inquiry: Why Isn't a Father Liable for His Child's Damages?

Hello, I would like to direct a question to Rabbi Daniel Bales, shlit''a. It is known that if a minor causes damage or steals, he is not required to return what was taken. In cases of damage, it is also understood that there is no obligation on the parents to cover the child's theft or the value of the damage caused. Why is this so? Certainly, the child cannot be sued, but every child has a guardian, whether it's the parent, an adoptive parent, or a sibling, and so on. Thank you in advance!

Greetings and thank you for your question,

The Torah recognizes a person's responsibility for damages based on their ability to be accountable for their actions:

- A person who sleeps in front of objects and breaks them during his sleep is liable for the damage, even though he was unaware when breaking them. The reason is that he chose to risk the items while he was awake and chose this place to sleep.

- However, if someone sleeps in a place where there are no items, and another person places items there, and they are broken, the sleeping person is not liable for breaking them since he did not choose to endanger the items while awake.

- A person who owns an ox not known to be dangerous, yet it gores another ox and kills it, is liable to pay only half the damage because he was unaware of the ox's tendency to gore.

- On the other hand, if someone owns an ox known to be aggressive, and it gores another and kills it, he must pay full damages because he was aware of the risk and should have guarded it more vigilantly.

It appears that the common denominator in all the examples can be summarized by two components:

1. Ownership/property. That is, a person is responsible for his body or his ox because they belong to him.

2. The level of responsibility is dependent on the person's ability to avoid causing damage.

As can be understood, regarding a child, these two components do not exist:

1. Unlike an ox, a child is not considered the father's property, nor can he be traded or sold.

2. An ox has no reasoning and acts based on instincts, allowing actions to be predicted, at least statistically. However, a child, while his reasoning is not matured, is developing and thus the father cannot predict his actions in advance nor guard against damages he might cause. We have heard of cases where parents were completely shocked and surprised by their child's cruel behavior towards a classmate or animal, with no prior indications to anticipate such actions. A child is not an "ox" whose actions can be predicted (certainly not kept in a cage!).

I assume for this reason, fundamentally, the father is exempt from damages caused by his child. However, I've seen that rabbis write that it is a practice of piety for the father to pay, even if he is not legally required to do so.

It's important to note that I am not a rabbi and not qualified to answer halachic questions. I answered your question based only on my personal understanding. However, for such questions, it is appropriate to consult a rabbi who is an expert in monetary laws.

Best regards,

Daniel Bales