A. Any act of malicious or wilful misconduct of a minor which results in any injury to the person or property of another, to include theft or shoplifting, shall be imputed to the parents or legal guardian having custody or control of the minor whether or not such parents or guardian could have anticipated the misconduct for all purposes of civil damages, and such parents or guardian having custody or control shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any actual damages resulting from such malicious or wilful misconduct.
B. The joint and several liability of one or both parents or legal guardian having custody or control of a minor under this section shall not exceed ten thousand dollars for each tort of the minor. The liability imposed by this section is in addition to any liability otherwise imposed by law.
C. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, nothing in this section limits the right of an insurer to exclude coverage for the acts of a minor imputed to his parent or legal guardian pursuant to this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1971–2021 · leading case:
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
· cites it 4× “, A.R.S. § 12-661(A) ("Any act of malicious or wilful misconduct of a minor .”
Blocher v. Thompson, 818 P.2d 167 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 12× “Blocher premised his claim of liability against Susan’s parents on several theories, including (1) the family purpose doctrine, (2) negligent entrustment, (3) A.R.S. § 12-661, and (4) A.R.S. § 28-417(C).”
Am. Fam. Mut. Ins. v. White, 65 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “¶4 Appellant’s personal injury action alleged that his injuries were caused by the negligence of Travis, that this negligence should be imputed to the Wildes under A.R.S. § 12-661 (Supp.2002), and that the Wildes negligently supervised Travis.”
In Re Kory L., 979 P.2d 543 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “, A.R.S. § 12-661 (Supp.1998) (imputing to “parents or legal guardian having custody or control of minor” up to $10,000 in civil liability for damage caused by malicious or wilful misconduct of minor).”
State of Arizona v. Vivek a Patel, 486 P.3d 188 (Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 3× “§ 13-4433 unconstitutional because it “interferes with rights provided by the Arizona Constitution” and stating that the legislature may not restrict rights created 5 Section 8-344(C) does include a limit as to how much restitution one or both custodial parents can be ordered to…”
Pfaff by & Through Stalcup v. Ilstrup, 746 P.2d 1303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 4× “In this appeal from a summary judgment, the issue is whether a non-custodial father residing 120 miles from his 17-year-old son can be held liable for negligent supervision or under A.R.S. § 12-661 for the damage caused by that son’s sexual assault.”
Parsons v. Smithey, 504 P.2d 1272 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 2× “Smithey and Sarah Smithey pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-661 (1956), and also on the common law doctrine of parental negligence, in failing to exercise control of a minor son.”
Nationwide Mut. Ins. v. Stevens, 802 P.2d 1071 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Parker’s mother was sued on the theory of negligent supervision and liability pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-661 and 28-417, since she signed her son’s driver’s license application.”
State v. Rodgers, 909 P.2d 445 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“We are mindful, however, that as the supreme court wrote in Milligan , highways being “for the use of the public at large,” “it is necessary that the travel thereon shall be governed by certain laws,” such as §§ 12-661 and 12-663, “so that the rights of each citizen may be…”
Bishop v. Pecanic, 975 P.2d 114 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“) section 12-661 (1992) (amended 1994). ¶ 3 Before trial, the Bishops settled their claims against three of the tortfeasors and their parents for a total of $57,500.”
Parsons v. Smithey, 489 P.2d 75 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 2× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-661, recovery against the parents in the amount of $500 was allowed.”
In Re Tommy G. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 4× “§ 8-344(A), (C) and A.R.S. § 12-661(A). ¶7 The court held a restitution hearing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-661(A) — 2 cases
Wyatt v. Wehmueller, 806 P.2d 870 (Ariz. 1991).
“, A.R.S. § 12-661(A) ("Any act of malicious or wilful misconduct of a minor .”
In Re Tommy G. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“§ 8-344(A), (C) and A.R.S. § 12-661(A). ¶7 The court held a restitution hearing.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-661(B) — 1 case
In Re Tommy G. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“§ 8-344(A), (C) and A.R.S. § 12-661(A). ¶7 The court held a restitution hearing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.