Vort v. Westbrook
142 S.E.2d 813
Ga.
1965
Check Treatment

*1 by Next Friend. WESTBROOK, 22885. VORT Argued May 10, 1965. 9, 1965 Decided March Powell, Goldstein, Murphy, Gregg Loomis, plain- Frazer & tiff in error. Parker, Parker, Jr.,

Charlie Charlie contra. brought this aged Westbrook, Wanda Lois Per Curiam. Westbrook, Superior next friend 0. Court action James In Tommy Vort. County against Stephen of Fulton Vort is the alleged: that Tommy 2 of was Vort count Stephen years a minor 13 -has Vort, father age, that the minor Stephen Vort; and control of on March backyard parents’ home; her that plaintiff was the minor minor defendant came said and “as defendant, plaintiff the minor the minor defendant turned to face hand, rock, took which threw it the direction of was plaintiff teeth”; in the that as a plaintiff, hitting mouth plaintiff direct the minor certain said incident sustained permanent teeth; that the minor defendant “did her with wilfully plaintiff throw said rock at wantonly causing injury”; the intention of her and her striking imputable “is to defendant defend- Georgia thereof ant for the results Code Sec. 1956, page prayer 699.” was a Acts $7,500. petition Tommy in the amount To this count of the Vort, interposed father of the minor demurrers state a cause of action grounds

him and unconstitutional on Act of Federal as violative the due clauses of the Federal Constitutions of the equal assigned the order exceptions bill error *2 these overruling demurrers. Ann. liability predicated Code

The defendant’s 699). provides: section That Code L. 105-113 § having control of a minor child “Every be liable for shall or children under or chil minor child of vandalism said wilful wanton acts damage injury property in or or that this Act shall be cumulative however, Provided, another: any now to any be restrictive remedies available and shall not arising out of corporation injuries or person, firm or ‘family- child under the acts, torts, negligence or of minor effect in in car or now force purpose any doctrine’ statutes Georgia.” proper are of under the State We alleged plaintiff’s in Code section acts construction of under the defendant liable petition, if not render would proven, 105-113, overruling erred in the court § ground demurrer that the defendant’s pro against state him. 105-113 cause of action § shall be liable “for vides that the of a minor under 17 of said minor child or wilful and wanton acts of vandalism property injury damage children or resulting in or (Emphasis supplied). is defined as of another.” Vandalism damage destroy are intended to or acts as wilful or malicious (133 Medford, Landers Ga. See v. 108 529 &c. Assurance 403); Accident (119 Pintsopolous In App. 215, 82); v. Home Ga. (1) 559); surance 340 Mass. 734 NE2d 91 CJS Co., in under “Vandalism” 44 Words Phrases cases cited & 113-114. the definition vandalism to Code Ann. Applying clear that is liable only wilful § and wanton acts his minor children 17 which damage property in and is their acts which persons injuries result in unless the act of vandalism results injury person. very in as property injury as well injuries definition of the word an in of the word the use persons not vandalism. only is any in acts which result Code Ann. 105-113 excludes vandalism § injuries plaintiff’s persons. Since the acts only damage, and not personal resulted are not the statute not covered they against state a cause of action the defendant as father of as to render him liable under Code Ann. 105-113. The child so demurrer on the court erred in state a him. petition failed to cause of action “This on the constitu pass upon court will attack parties rights it tionality Act, made of a defeating does not no interest affect, who therefore have (5) Webb City it.” SE Atlanta, 186 Ga. 430 Since Code Ann. defendant apply 105-113 does case, this reason are not affected For we it. do not rule on the made on various constitutional Ga. attacks *3 1956, p. 699.

For the trial reasons stated in Division 1 court the erred demurrer. Judgment Candler, concur, except reversed. All the Justices J., J., who concur Duckworth, J., dissents. C. and Almand Justice, concurring specially. Chief The word

Duckworth, damaging, defacing and destroying property. “vandalism” means meaning meaning given the and the dictionary by it This is including Appeals the court Court of Acci- decisions dent &c. Assurance 103 Ga. Adams, of Bell

82), App___By and the case 111 Ga. recent damages limiting actions for therein authorized to those expressly vandalism, p. 699; from the Act 105-113) requires the to recovery courts disallow for to person by the which are caused wilful tort the of minor under but not as a of injury to More than legislative provide it desire likely was the to this Act for re- parent the both the and quiring pay to the their the wanton torts of chil- from wilful and It would be unreasonable to hold the seventeen. yet upon the direct assault parent personal injury. if resulted in the upon property the assault same expressed accepting plainly no alternative to But have courts intent to restrict actionable torts unexpressed intent speculate as to permitted for we are not expressed it violates plainly effectuate when do so and intent. constitutionality question has been raised a as to that it upon liability without

of this Act creates agree if the Act did it would be that, I would unconsti- fault. Buchanan v. But Heath, tutional. 210 Ga. 410 be free reasonably parent it asserted that from can wilfully injures people. his minor innocent The fault when child right earnings confers to receive all the law places upon support minor child. It his duty him his discipline authorizes him to and control child. He lawfully of his conduct is thus authorized control comings goings child. He hold of. privileges enjoy these without at the same time responsibility commensurate therewith for the child’s conduct. legislature to be attempting by The commended for neighborhoods afford Act individuals parents minors indifferent terrorism are too to con- them. There is an pay trol old law that should states who damages. Code such 37-113. The has lawful punish power control his minor child while the innocent no power. let victim has such rather pay. Perhaps parent’s pocketbook the victim when the than parenthood. he assume his law, will duties reached might hope legislature by striking amend this I would law “vandalism” therefrom. word *4 concurring Justice, disagree as to While I Almand, given to the Act 699; construction agree to 105-113), judgment reversing .1 my demurrers because in order court’s Act violates the due