- 2,795
I was a producer for a large carrier who writes in all states and a child of a client was autistic. The child set fire to the home on 2 separate occasions and the carrier paid. Also could not get off the policy and still covered by company. It was a willful act but was argued that the child did not understand.
That's true. There is a plethora of case law and statutes about a child's liability for torts (negligence) and crimes. The standards differ from state to state.
- Under age 7: A child could not be negligent.
- Between age 7 and 14: There was a rebuttable presumption that the child could not be negligent.
- Between age 14 and 21: There was a rebuttable presumption that the child was capable of negligence.
- Under age 7: A child was conclusively deemed incapable of committing a crime.
- Between age 7 and 14: There was a presumption that the child was unable to form criminal intent; however, this presumption could be rebutted by the state proving that the child had sufficient intelligence to form a criminal intent.
- Between age 14 and 21: A minor was held to have the same capacity to form a criminal intent as an adult.
Californa Jury Instruction 402 explains further
CACI No. 402. Standard of Care for Minors :: California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) (2023) :: Justia
Connecticut is another example.
Torts of Minors in Connecticut
And when there are mental health or medical issues, the standards change dramatically. It's not surprising that an autistic child could be deemed incapable of forming intent.