373 A.2d 191 | Conn. Super. Ct. | 1977
The plaintiff brings suit against the parents of an unemancipated minor for wrongful conversion of the plaintiff's property. Section
It is well settled that a defendant who attacks a statute on constitutional grounds has no easy burden. Kellems v. Brown,
The defendants claim that when a statute restricts fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution it must be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny to determine its constitutionality. They claim that although a validly enacted statute ordinarily carries with it the presumption of constitutionality, that presumption vanishes once it appears that the law interferes with a fundamental constitutional right. The defendants claim that the passing of §
"Parents and those in loco parentis, through consanguinity or affinity, not only have a deep, immediate and personal interest in the welfare of their children and wards but, under law, may enforce correction for the unruly conduct of their charges *9 and compel obedience in all matters, whether of a legal, moral or familial nature." State v. Hughes, 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 181, 192-93. Because parents do have the authority to compel obedience of their children, it would not seem unreasonable to hold them responsible for exercising that authority.
The defendants claim that the purpose of §
Similar statutes have been passed in a majority of the other states, and in only one, as far as the court is aware, has such a statute been held unconstitutional. The case ofCorley v. Lewless,
The case of General Ins. Co. v. Faulkner,
Also, the court is persuaded by the argument set forth by a Texas court, which held a similar statute constitutional. It quoted from the Villanova Law Review as follows: "`[I]n all fairness, it is better that the parents of these young tort feasors be required to compensate those who are damaged, even though the parents be without fault, rather than to let the loss fall upon the innocent victims.'"Kelly v. Williams,
The legislature passed this statute for two apparent reasons. One reason is to deter juvenile delinquency by placing upon the parent the obligation to control his minor child so as to prevent him from intentionally harming others. Gillespie
v. Gallant,
The defendants' demurrer is overruled.