Court Opinion

ID: 9723052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 10:01:21.070867+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:44.256184
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. I feel that Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-801 (Reissue 1988) is *859unconstitutional and that its predecessor statute, § 43-801 (Reissue 1952), was unconstitutional, because both constitute special legislation denying equal protection of the law in violation of article III, § 18, of the Nebraska Constitution and the 14th amendment, § 1, to the U.S. Constitution and because the current statute violates the due process clause set out in article I, § 3, of the Nebraska Constitution and in the 14th amendment, § 1, to the U.S. Constitution.
In my judgment, a rational basis for differentiating parents of children who cause property damage from parents of children who cause personal injury damage does not exist. It does not seem rational to me that the State of Nebraska is perfectly willing to drive a family into bankruptcy (most families could not stand a $178,000 judgment such as sought in this case) if a minor child willfully damages property, but chooses to limit possible frightful damages caused by the same willful child by way of personal injury. Can it make sense to value a burned-up warehouse more highly in the overall scheme of things than the eyesight of a child lost through the malicious actions of another child? That such parental statutes do result in bankruptcy filings is shown in many cases. In bankruptcy cases, it appears that the owners of judgments against parents often seek to inflict additional punishment by contending the judgments are not dischargeable because they represent intentional torts. See, In re Whitacre, 93 Bankr. 584 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1988); In re Eggers, 51 Bankr. 452 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 1985); In re Horne, 46 Bankr. 814 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1985); In re Cornell, 42 Bankr. 860 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 1984); In re Austin, 36 Bankr. 306 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1984). Appellees herein may take some comfort in the fact that it appears that debts resulting from vicarious liability for intentional or negligent acts of children appear generally to be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
In reaching the foregoing conclusion, I do not contest the obviously correct holding in Abel v. Conover, 170 Neb. 926, 104 N.W.2d 684 (1960), also in the majority opinion. What I disagree with is the majority’s concept that § 43-801 (Reissue 1988) imposes no penalty on parents since it “imposes liability only for actual damages.” Whether they are actual or not, if the *860damages are imposed on parents only because of the acts of their children, the imposition operates as a penalty on the parents for the actions of another, their child.
I do not believe a rational basis exists for such a differentiation, and I believe § 43-801 is unconstitutional as constituting proscribed special legislation under the Nebraska Constitution and in not affording equal protection under the U.S. Constitution.
I also believe that § 43-801 violates the due process clauses of the Nebraska and U.S. Constitutions, because the statute imposes unlimited vicarious liability, without fault, on certain parents. I do not believe § 43-801 can be considered by this court in the way that courts of other states have considered parental liability statutes in their states, because our statute differs materially from other statutes. In Maryland, New Mexico, Texas, Illinois, Connecticut, Ohio, Georgia, and Wyoming, there are statutory limits to the amount for which the parent may be liable. Those limits range from $300 to $15,000, but the mere fact there is a limit differentiates those states from Nebraska, where the property damage liability is unlimited. In New Jersey, a parent is liable if the parent “fails or neglects to exercise reasonable supervision and control” of the conduct of a minor child — a negligence basis. N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:53A-15 (West 1987).
I do not believe the court’s analysis of the case of Bridgeford v. U-Haul Co., 195 Neb. 308, 238 N.W.2d 443 (1976), and Neb. Rev. Stat. § 39-6,193 (Reissue 1974) is helpful in this case. Both the case and the statute concern business relationships not present in this case.
If the Nebraska statute imposed liability for a parent’s actions, not for the mere status as parents, or had a reasonable limit on the amounts which a parent might have to pay for damages intentionally caused by his or her child (as most of the states provide), I would not make this contention. Such a statute might reflect the valid considerations this state has in encouraging parents to teach their children respect for the law and the property of others. I think it an entirely different situation when the statute operates to take all the assets of a family (up to $178,000 in this case) for the derelictions of one *861member of the family, without providing any process where parents can adequately defend such a taking, in a situation where the parents probably cannot obtain protective insurance and thus possibly protect the interest of the family unit in surviving.
I also believe that provisions of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions forbidding excessive fines also require the court to determine that § 43-801 is unconstitutional. I note the consideration expressly given in many states to the fact that limited recovery of amounts from parents should be in the nature of penalties to enforce compliance with the law rather than in the nature of compensation to the injured parties. The majority opinion states that § 43-801 is related “to the legitimate state ends of controlling juvenile delinquency . . . .” As soon as that approach is adopted, it is clear the state is imposing a penalty on persons in a certain status, i.e., being parents of children who intentionally damage property, in order to control the behavior of such parents. As stated in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 96, 78 S. Ct. 590, 2 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1958), “If the statute imposes a disability for the purposes of punishment — that is, to reprimand the wrongdoer, to deter others, etc. — it has been considered penal.”
Such a penalty is in the nature of a fine. The eighth amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and article I, § 9, of the Nebraska Constitution expressly provide that excessive fines may not be imposed. The “fine” sought to be levied on appellees in this case is $178,000. In my judgment, that amount constitutes an excessive, unconstitutional fine and is, therefore, invalid.
I recognize that in Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 97 S. Ct. 1401, 51 L. Ed. 2d 711 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the “cruel and unusual punishments” clause of the eighth amendment applies only to criminal cases. I not only agree completely with the four-judge dissent in the Ingraham case, but I point out that in the case before this court, we are dealing with the “excessive fines” clause of the eighth amendment — a different clause. Even if that conclusion is not correct, I see nothing to prevent the application of the “excessive fines” clause of article I, § 9, of the Nebraska Constitution in the case *862before us. See Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Brown, 258 Ga. 115, 365 S.E.2d 827 (1988).
I would affirm.