Valerie Gonzalez “Intentional Torts” Children are children however the question asked is should they be liable for their own intentional torts or should the parent and/or guardian be liable. Would my argument change if the injured party is the child themselves or an adult? According to Schubert (2015) an intentional tort is “a civil wrong in which the defendant is alleged to have intentionally interfered with the plaintiff’s person, reputation, or property (p.375).” If a child’s conduct reflects that they have intentionally committed a civil wrong then yes, they should be held liable. However, there is another as if the child is not at the age of knowing right from wrong then the child needs to be taught and corrected therefore the parent and/or guardian needs to be held liable. If the act is against the child themselves then the parent and/or guardian is liable no question asked. For a parent and/or guardian are the ones who are to protect children when they cannot protect themselves. We are the voice for them when they cannot speak for themselves. If the act is against an adult, then I ask as to why this act occurred. How did it happen and why, for a child is not going to attack an adult without cause or reason. In conclusion, children need to be held accountable for their actions within reason. If I child does not no better, then how can he be held liable for his ignorance? There is a difference between stupidity and ignorance for ignorance is not knowing and stupidity is knowing and choosing to continue anyhow. References Schubert, F. A. (2015). Introduction to law and the legal system. Stamford, CT: Cengage Sylvia Patterson I believe that a child should be held for their own intentional torts. One of my arguments would be the word “intentional”. That would mean that the child intentionally interfered with some one person, property, or reputation. I believe that some parents do raised their children to obey the laws and hold their children accountable for their actions. However when its intentional i think that beyond a parent controls. Like if a parent gives a child a car for their sweet 16th birthday and a month later the child is involve in a car accident that leaves a child an d mother dead. The child should be held responsible even though it was accident. When its intentional it would also depend on the person mindset at the time. Which makes me believe it was o purpose when its an accident .It would be some type of negligence. My argument would not change if if the party was a child or adult i believe that people should be accountable for their actions whether they are intentional or negligence . I do not think parents should be responsible for their children actions. What if a single mom at work and she have directed her child to go home straight from and do not come back outside until she gets home. Then the child calls his mother at work to let her know that they are home from and then later that the mother receiv ...