50 / 270
GAZETTE
MARCH/APRIL 1980
• Footnotes to "Binchy" article from page 37.
1.
See generally Salmond on the Law of Torts,
43S (17th cd., by R.
F. V. Heuston, 1977),
Wirfield and Jolowicz on Tort,
645-646 (11th
ed., by W. Rogers, 1979), J. Fleming,
The Law of Torts,
602-603 (5th
ed., 1977), Waller,
Visiting the Sins of the Children: The Liability of
Parents for Iiy'uries Caused by their Children,
4 Melbourne U.L. Rev.
17 (1963),
Anon., Dangerous Toys,
64 I.L.T. & SOL. J. 223, at 225
(1930).
2. 8 C.B. (N.S.) 611, at 615, 141 E.R. 1306, at 1308 (1860).
See
also, to similar effect, Curley
v.
Mannion,
[1965] I.R. 543, at 546
(per
O'Dalaigh, C.J.), and 549 (
per
Walsh, J.) (Sup. Ct.),
Donaldson
v.
McNiven,
[ 19521 2 All E.R. 691, at 692 (C.A.,
per
Lord Goddard,
C.J.),
Rogers
v.
Wilkinson, The Times,
19 January, 1963, p. 4, cols.
3-4, at col. 3 (Q.B. Div., Thesiger, J.).
3. Waller,
supra,
fn. 1, at 19 (footnote references omitted).
4.
Cf. Halsbury's Laws of England,
vol. 21, 151 (34d ed., 1957),
Fleming,
supra,
fn. 1, 670, Stone,
Liability for Damage Caused by
Minors: A Comparative Study,
5 Ala. L. Rev. 1, at 25-26 (1952).
5. 11937] Ir. Jur. Rep. 1 (High Ct., Hanna, J., 1936).
6.
Supra,
fn. 2.
7.
Cf. id.,
at 614 and 1307, respectively
(per
Erie, C.J.) and at 615
and 1307, respectively
(per
Williams, J.).
8.
See Salmqnd, supra,
fn. 1, 435-436, Fleming,
supra,
fn. 1, 670.
9.
See Fleming, supra,
fn. 1, 373-375, Waller,
supra,
fn. 1, at 21-24,
P. Atiyah,
Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts,
131 (1967).
10.
Cf Holderness
v.
Goslin,
[1975] 2 N.Z.L.R. 46, at 50 (Sup. Ct.,
Mahon, J., 1974). In Ireland, since 1933, legislation has imposed
vicarious liability on car owners based on consensual user:
see
now the
Road Traffic Act 1961,
section 118 (no. 24). See Osborough,
The
Vicarious Liability of the Vehicle Owner,
6 Ir. Jur. (N.S.) 77 (1971).
Cf. Beechinor v. O'Connor
[19391 Ir. Jur. Rep. 86 (High Ct.,
O'Byrne, J., with jury) (son driving parent's car);
see also Maher v.
G.N. Ry. Co.,
[1942]. For a comparison with equivalent Northern
Ireland legislation
see
Sheridan,
Note: Irish Private Law,
2 Int. &
Comp. L.Q. 397 (1953) (correcting his error in 1 Int. & Comp. L.Q.,
a t l 9 9 (1952)).
SlT. 111)571 I.R. 192 (Sup. Ct.).
12. But not her aunt:
id.,
at 199
(per
Henchy, J.).
13. O'Higgins, C.J. and Walsh, J.; Henchy, J., dissenting.
14.
Supra,
fn. 11, at 197.
15.
Id.
16.
Cf.
fn. 9
supra.
17. P. Atiyah,
supra,
fn. 9, 134, makes an observation on these lines.
So also does J. Fleming,
An Introduction to the Law of Torts,
174
(1967) (reprinted (with corrections) 1977).
18.
Supra,
fn. 11, at 199-200.
Cf. Hahn
v.
Conley,
45 Austr. L.J.R.
631, at 636 (High Ct. Austr.,
per
Barwick, C.J., 1971):
"In any case, in my opinion, where it is sought to make parents
or blood relations liable to their children or relatives because of
particular situations those who have to try the facts ought not to
indulge in undue subtlety in order to create liability even in these
days when the consequence of so many breaches of duty have
(sic)
been passed on by insurance to be borne by others."
19.
Supra,
fn. 11, at 202-203.
20.
Supra,
fn. 11.
21.
Id.,
at 197
(per
Walsh, J.).
22.
Cf. Walmsley
v.
Humenick,
[1954] 2 D.L.R. 232 (B.C. Sup. Ct.,
Clyne, J.),
Prasad
v.
Prasad,
[ 19741 5 W.W.R. 628 (B.C. Sup. Ct.,
Rae, J.).
23.
Cf.
Davies,
Torts,
ch. 15 of H. Wade ed.,
Annual Survey of
Commonwealth Law 1976,
at 406 (1978), who considers that "[tlhe
implications of this case for family relationships are distrubing".
24.
See generally Salmond, supra,
fn. 1, 436,
Fleming, supra,
fn. 1,
670-671,
Hals bury, supra,
fn. 4, vol. 21, 150-151, Waller,
supra,
fn.
1, at 24-29, Fridman,
Children and Negligence,
117 New L.J. 35, at
36 (1967).
25.
See Dixon
v.
Bell,
M. & S. 198, 105 E.R. 1023 (1816),
Lynch v.
Nurdin,
1 Q.B. 29, at 35, 113 E.R. 1041, at 1043 (per Lord Denman,
C.J., 1941);
cf Good-Wear Trenders Ltd.
v. D.
& B. Holdings Ltd.,
8
C.C.L.T. 87, at 101-102 (N.S. Sup. Ct. App. Div.,
per
MacKeigan,
C.J. N.S., 1979).
26. [ 19041 2 I.R. 317 (Ct. App., 1903). The decision has been widely
cited and discussed in many common law jurisdictions:
see, e.g., Reida
v. Lund,
18 Cal. App. 3d 698, 96 Cal. Rptr. 102 (Ct. App. 2nd Dist.,
1971),
Dickens v. Barnham,
69 Colo. 349, 194 P. 356 (Sup. Ct.,
1920),
Salisbury
v.
Crudale,
41 R.I. 33, 102 A. 731 (Sup. Ct., 1918)
(describing the decision as being "of great weight"),
Thibodeau
v.
Cieff,
24 O.L.R. 214 (Div. Ct., 1911),
Kenealy v. Karaka,
26
N.Z.L.R. 1 118 (C.A., 1906).
27. Supra, fn. 26, at 340.
28.
Newton v. Edgerley,
[1959] 1 W.L.R. 1031, at 1032 (per Lord
Parker, C.J.).
See also Donaldson v. McNiven, supra,
fn. 2,
Bebee
v.
Sales,
32 Times L.R. 413 (K.B. Div.,
Lush & Rowlatt,
JJ., 1916),
Court v. Wyatt,
The Times, 24 June, 1060, p. 12, col. 2 (Q.B. Div.,
Donovan, J.),
Rogers
v.
Wilkinson, supra,
fn. 2
Hinds
v.
Direct
Supply Co. (Clapham Junction) Ltd., The Times,
29 January, 1966,
p. 15, cols. 6-7 (Q.B. Div., MacKenna, J.).
29. On principle, it would appear that a parent who culpably fails to
learn of his child's particular dangerous propensities should not be able
to shelter behind his ignorance. Nevertheless, some decisions appear to
require something akin to
scienter
on the part of the parent:
see, e.g.,
Strefel v. Stroz,
11 D.L.R. (2d) 667 (B.C. Sup. Ct., Whittaker, J.,
1957).
30.
Cf. Gorely
v.
Codd,
[19661 3 All E.R. 891 at 896, (Nield, J.)
Court
v.
Wyatt, supra,
fn. 28,
Michand
v.
Dupuis,
30 N.B.R. (2d) 305
(Sup. Ct., Q.B.D., Richard, J., 1977) (father knew of eleven-year-old
son's propensity to throw stones and did nothing to control it),
Zuckerberg v. Munter,
277 App. Div. 1061, 100 N.U.S. 2d 910(2nd
Dept., 1950) (eight-year-old son attacked domestic servant with
baseball bat).
31.
Cf. Streifel v. Stroz, supra,
fn. 29.
32.
Cf. Thibodeau
v.
Cieff, supra,
fn. 26,
Agnesini
v.
Olsen,
277 App.
Div. 1006, 100 N.Y.S. 2d 338 (2nd Dept., 1950).
33.
Cf. Lelarge v. Blakney,
21 N.B.R. (2d) 100 (Sup. Ct., Q.B.D.,
Dickson, J., 1978).
34.
Cf. Zuckerbrod v. Burch,
88 N J. Super. 1, 210 A. 2d 425 (App.
Div., 1965).
35.
Cf. Gambino v. Dileo,
17 D.L.R. (3d) 167 (Ont. High Ct., Osier,
J., 1970),
Arnold
v.
Teno,
83 D.L.R. (3d) 609 (Sup. Ct. Can., 1978),
McCallion v. Dodd,
[1966] N.Z.L.R. 710 (C.A.).
36. 119651 I.R. 543 (Sup. Ct.).
37.
Id.,
at 546.
38.
Id.,
at 549-550.
See also Carmarthenshire County Council
v.
Lewis,
119551 A.C. 549, at 566 (H.L. (Eng.),
per
Lord Reid).
39. Alexander,
Tort Liability of Children and Their Parents,
ch. 14
of D. Mendes da Costa ed.,
Studies in Canadian Family Law,
at 867
(1972).
Cf. Hewer v. Bryant,
[ 1970] 1 Q.B. 357, at 369(C.A., 1969).
40.
Cf.
D. Inglis,
Family Law,
vol. 1, 215-218 (2nd ed., 1968),
Waller,
supra,
fn. 1, at 18-29,
Kenealy
v.
Karaka, supra,
fn. 26,
McCallion v. Dodd, supra,
fn. 35,
Heberley v. Lash,
[ 1922] N.Z.L.R.
409 (Sup. Ct., 1921),
Dobson v. Holderness,
[ 19751 2 N.Z.L.R. 749
(C.A.).
41. Cf. Alexander,
supra,
fn. 39, at 863-871, Alexander,
Tort
Responsibility of Parents and Teachers for Damage Caused by
Children,
16 U. Toronto L.J. 165 (1965), Dunlop,
Torts Relating to
Infants,
5 Western L. Rev. 116, at 120-122 (1966). The most
recently-reported decisions are
Floyd v. Bowers,
6 C.C.L.T. 65 (Ont.
High Ct., Starke, J., 1978) and
Lelarge
v.
Blakney, supra,
fn. 33.
42.
Cf. Smith
v.
Leurs,
70 Comm. L.R. 256 (High Ct. Austr., 1945),
Hahn v. Conley, supra,
fn. 18.
43.
See generally
W. Prosser,
Handbook of the Law of Torts,
871-
873 (4th ed., 1971), Spence,
Parental Liability,
119481 Ins. L.J. 787,
Wilcox,
Note: Parental Responsibility for Juvenile Delinquencies,
34
Chic.-Kent L. Rev. 222 (1956), Watkins,
Note,
8 Ark. L. Rev. 122
(1953), Jones,
Note,
27 So. Cal. L. Rev. 214 (1953), Weinstein,
Note,
52 Mich. L. Rev. 465 (1954), Gudger,
Note,
19 N. Car. L. Rev. 333
(1944).
44.
See
Freer,
Parental Liability for Torts of Children,
53 Ky. L.J.
254 (1964),
Anon., Note: Criminal Liability of Parents for Failure to
Control their Children.
6 Valparaiso U.L. Rev. 332, at 337-338
(1972).
Cf
section 99 (1) of the
Children Act 1908
(8 Edw. 7, c. 67),
and see
J. B. McClartneyl,
Responsibility of Parents for Children and
Young Persons,
15 N.I.L.Q. 298 (1964).
45.
Corley v. Lewless,
227 Ga. 745, 182 S.E. 2d 766 (1971).
46.
See, e.g.
the Civil Codes of France (article 1384, para. 1), the
Federal Republic of Germany (article 832(1)), Italy (article 2047(1)),
Spain (article 1903, para. 1), Portugal (article 491), Switzerland
(articlc 333), Louisiana (article 2317) and Quebec (article 1054, para.
1).
47. For general analyses of the Civil Law approach,
see
G. Marty,
La Responsabilidad
Civil en Derecho Comparado,
55 ff. (1962),
Tunc,
The Twentieth Century Development and Function of the Law
of Torts in France,
14 Int. & Comp. L.Q. 1089, at 1091, 1093-1094
(1965), Larroumet,
Responsabilite
de Fait d'Autrui,
Dalloz,
Repertoire de Droit Civil,
tome VI, paras. 132 ff. (1974), M. Pogliani,
Responsabilita a Risarcimento da Illecito Civile,
122 fT. (1969), J.
Berdejo & F. Revullida,
Derecho de Familia,
460 (1966), Kimball,
44