MBE Mondays | Minors’ Liability & Intentional Torts Explained | BARBRI Bar Exam Prep

Added: 2026-05-22

[00:00:00]Could you pass the bar exam? Let's find out with MBE Monday. All right, let's read the question. A 10-year-old boy and two other children were caught by the police one night while breaking and causing other damage to a woman's automobile. The damages totaled $2,000.

[00:00:14]By statute, this jurisdiction makes parents liable for up to $5,000 for the willful and intentional torts of their minor children. In a suit by the car owner against the boy for damages to her automobile, will the car owner likely prevail? Step one, we have to recognize the call of this question. How we recognize the call of this question is to figure out what type of question this is. And this is a torts question, specifically an intentional torts question. Not only is this an intentional torts question, but also it's a minors liability intentional torts question. The key concept this question is testing is whether or not a minor child can be held personally liable when the parent statute exists.

[00:00:55]Step two, we are going to spot the rule.

[00:00:58]We know that a minor can be held liable for intentional torts. Because this is an intentional tort question, we have to define what intent means. Intent here means the child intended to act or that the child knew with substantial certainty that the result would occur. I think it's important to note here that parental liability statutes do add on parental liability, but they do not erase the liability of the children. And on to step three, we are going to eliminate the traps and wrong answers. A is going to be incorrect because it is the wrong standard. We know the test here is substantial certainty. Whether or not someone should have been aware of the consequences is not the right standard. C is going to be incorrect because saying a minor is not responsible because they were under their parents care is just incorrect law. We know that minors can absolutely be held liable for the torts they commit. And then finally, we are going to get rid of D because this is a trap.

[00:01:55]What D is essentially getting at is that because of the parental liability statute, that would completely get rid of the child's liability, and we know that is not true. We know the purpose of the parents liability statute is to extend liability to parents and not replace or eliminate the child's liability. So, now that we've eliminated all of our incorrect answers, we know that the only correct answer is B.

[00:02:19]Because the boy deliberately damaged the car, that would satisfy intent, and that would bring on personal liability. We know that just because the parents can be held liable under the statute, that doesn't mean the child is not going to also be held liable. So, B is the correct answer. On the MBE, be sure to separate who committed the tort from who else is actually liable. Here, the child will still own the conduct, even if the parents get pulled in under statute.

[00:02:46]This was a tricky one. We'll see you next week for MBE Monday.