Story Case

Henry Pugh, an infant fourteen years of age, carelessly drove his automobile into a wagon belonging to Edward Miller, damaging the wagon to the extent of fifty dollars. Miller demanded of Pugh that he compensate for this loss and the latter refused to pay anything. Thereupon Miller brought suit for all the losses suffered. Pugh admitted that he caused the damage, but stated that since he was an infant he was not liable, and Miller could not recover. Is this a good defense?

Ruling Court Case. Conway Vs. Reed, Volume 66 Missouri Reports, Page 346; Volume 27 American Decisions, Page 354

The plaintiff and defendant, both of whom were infants, were out playing together with a gun. By the negligence of the defendant, the gun was discharged; resulting in serious injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff brought this action, claiming damages for the injury. The defendant contended that he was not liable because he was an infant.

Decision: An infant is liable for his negligent wrongs in the same manner as is an adult. The fact that he is an infant should not relieve him of liability for damages which he has negligently caused.

Accordingly, it was held that the plaintiff might recover damages of the defendant for the injury sustained.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

An infant is liable for all his civil wrongs to the same extent that he would have been had he been an adult when he committed the wrong. If he is guilty of assault and battery on another, or trespasses upon property belonging to a third person, he is liable for the damages which result from his wrong, and the defense of infancy will not relieve him from liability.

Even if a minor acts in the presence of, or at the order of, his parent, he will be liable nevertheless, though his parent may also be jointly liable with him.

In the Story Case, Pugh is liable for all the injury and loss caused by his negligence, and his plea of infancy is not a good defense.