Standard v. Shine
South Carolina Supreme Court
295 S.E.2d 786 (1982)

- Written by Katrina Sumner, JD
Facts
Six-year-old Larry Shine, Jr., and his parents (defendants) lived in a leased apartment run by T. Z. Standard (plaintiff). Standard filed a suit against Larry, which alleged that Larry set fire to the apartment through negligence, causing damage. Shine also filed an action against Larry’s parents. The South Carolina Parental Responsibility Act allowed parents to be sued for the intentional torts of their children under the age of 17. Larry’s parents responded by filing demurrers to Standard’s complaints, which asserted that a minor was not capable of negligence nor of committing an intentional tort as a matter of law. The parents’ demurrers rested on a presumption in South Carolina law that minors under the age of seven were not capable of committing contributory negligence. A trial court overruled the parents’ demurrers, and the parents appealed. In the past, the South Carolina Supreme Court had held that a child under the age of seven was presumed incapable of committing contributory negligence. The court had not ruled regarding a minor’s ability to commit primary negligence. However, the dominant view regarding both types of negligence was that arbitrary age limits should not be established. In fact, § 238A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts recommended that the appropriate standard for assessing a minor child’s conduct was by comparing it with the conduct expected from a child of similar age and intelligence and of similar experience in a similar context.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harwell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.