I say may have culpability because we all need to know more about the facts of this case. In general, the prosecutor found the parents had a vicarious liability as it relates to their sons actions and they were charged criminally.
As the prosecution tells us, the parents, with the knowledge they had, should have intervened before the violence and saved lives. Some facts we were all provided via news accounts were that, the killer was having mental problems and asked for help, but his parents ignored this request. His parents bought the killer a gun several days before the shooting and made it available to him. The gun was not secured so the troubled young man could not have access to it, and the parents knew he was dangerous.
If all of this information is correct, and the Crumbleys understood the danger, and they ignored the potential for violence, and did nothing to prevent their son from attacking his classmates, then I think a case can be made that they have some, if not a lot of responsibility.
And while the facts in this particular incident make a case for responsibility on the part of the parents, we must ask if the laws in place were specific to this kind of event, or were the laws interpreted to fit around the facts of this case in order to pursue the parents because of their parenting style, mindset, and their intentions and inaction based on their knowledge which was shocking to the conscience in light of the crime that was committed by their son.
In other words, we’re using the concept of vicarious liability, that a person who has charge over another person and therefore responsibility for their actions, such as supervisor over an employee or in this case a parent over a minor child is responsible for the child’s actions.
While vicarious liability it is an accepted concept in the workplace, does that concept hold the same power in relation to the parent/ child dynamic?
The vicarious liability concept works with a bartender and an over-served customer because the bartender is making on-scene observations of the patron and is directly involved in the intoxication of a person who eventually goes down the road and kills a family in a car accident. The idea is “If not for the actions of the bar tender, the patron would not be intoxicated and would not have caused a deadly accident.”There’s a clear and straight line between the events and people involved.
The problem we have as a society is that this case, including the arrest and convictions of the parents is potentially opening a whole new area of vicarious liability. It is an area that may have more consequences than intended. It can lead to prosecutions that may be unwarranted, or even unjust, as the potential to pursue suspects can be governed by emotion, or other nefarious motives.
And in either of those cases while we may be assuaged and comforted by the pursuit and conviction of people based on a vicarious liability concept, we may also be creating an injustice.
In any event, the facts of the Crumbley case will work their way through the courts and the arrest and convictions convictions may be upheld or the case can be rejected. If upheld all the way to the Supreme Court, then new laws will be established in many, if not all the 50 states of America. A new era of responsibility will dawn.
While on its face that might seem like a good idea, let’s consider these points.
Where else will vicarious liability be established? If a husband has too much alcohol to drink and decides to run to the store for milk and bread in an intoxicated state, is his wife now responsible to call the police to report his driving while intoxicated? If he has a car crash on the way and people are killed, is the wife then responsible and can be arrested, tried, and convicted?
What if a teenager is a known gang member and his/her parents know this to be true, and they also know that this gang deals in drugs and is violent, involved in turf wars, shootings, and murders. Then one night this teenager is involved in an altercation or a robbery and an innocent person is killed, will the parents then be liable to prosecution?
