
    No. 79
    RINGHAVER, etc. v. SCHLUETER et.
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 7097.
    Decided Jan. 1927
    633. INFANTS — An infant is responsible for its own torts and a father cannot be held for the independent wrong of his child; but is liable if he was in any way connected with the infant’s wrong-doing.
    Attorneys — Schaefer & Lawrence for Ring-haver; Edward Blythin for Schlueter; all of Cleveland.
   SULLIVAN, J.

William Schlueter is the father of a minor of tender years, and Christian Ringhaver is also the father of a minor of tender years. The suit is one for recovery of damages based upon an injury received by the minor Ring% haver by the act of the minor Schlueter, in that while playing .with the rubber casing for the wheel of an automobile, it revolved toward the minor Ringhaver and injured it. It was claimed in the Cuyahoga Common Pleas by Ringhaver that the father of the minor Schlue-ter was responsible, not only on account of the relationship existing; but also because the child was vicious and demented and therefore dangerous to be at large.

The court upon motion directed a verdict in favor of the defendant at the close of the testimony. Error was prosecuted, and it was urged that there was error in the instructions of the court as to the question of punitive damages based upon malice, and that the judgment was against the weight of .the evidence. The Court of Appeals held:—

1. There is no error of a prejudicial nature in respect to the accountability of defendant’s minor, because the act complained of is not of itself, tinctured with any quality pertaining to dementia or a weak or vicious mind.

2. The act itself has no other character but that of the common innocence of childhood, to which there cannot be attached the legal responsibility of a parent to such a degree that it would make him legally liable for damages ensuing therefrom.

3. A parent, to be responsible for the torts of a minor child, must have some knowledge with respect to the act or must do some act that connects him with the circumstances which is the basis for recovery.

4. There is an absence of motive or intent on part of Schlueter’s child to commit the act, and it is relieved of any vicious element by reason of the children being on mutual terms of playfulness.

5. There is no evidence in the case which connects the father with the act of his child and there is nothing in the record relating to the child’s history or previous conduct that would warrant any other guardianship over the child that is not given to all parents by reason of the relationship alone. 9 Dec. Rep. 458; 8 O.N.P. 204; 11 O.D. (N.P.) 337.

Judgment affirmed.

(Levine, PJ., concurs.)  