What is rule regarding minor’s responsibility for their torts? I know what 12 O.S. 2017 says about capacity to be sued and being defended through Guardian ad litem?

Answer: A fourteen year-old would be responsible for his negligence. A child under 7 is incapable of negligence as a matter of law. Between 7 and 14, they are presumed incapable but may be shown to be responsible for their damages by proving their knowledge and capacity to know the nature and consequences of their actions. See Conner v. Houtman, 1960 OK 52, 350 P.2d 311 and Martin v. Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co., 1996 OK 55, 918 P.2d 49.

The parents are not liable for the torts of the minor except under limited circumstances. See: 76 O.S. Sec. 1.1: “Neither parent or child is answerable, as such, for the act of the other, except as otherwise specifically provided by law.”

If a motor vehicle is involved, you may be able to impose liability on the parents through 47 O.S. Sec. 6-107(B): “B. Any negligence or willful misconduct of a person under the age of eighteen (18) years when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway with the knowledge and consent of the person who signed the application for the restricted license shall be imputed to the person who has signed the application. Such person shall be jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages caused by such negligence or willful misconduct, except as otherwise provided in subsection C of this section.”

The minor will be an insured under either the parents’ homeowners policy or motor vehicle policy as a relative residing in the household.

Also, under 23 O.S. Sec. 10 A, “[t]he state or any county, city, town, municipal corporation or school district, or any person, corporation or organization, shall be entitled to recover damages in a court of competent jurisdiction from a parent or parents of any child under the age of eighteen (18) years when the child is living with the parent or parents at the time of the act, and commits any criminal or delinquent act resulting in bodily injury to any person or damage to or larceny of any property, real, personal or mixed, belonging to the state or a county, city, town, municipal corporation, school district, person, corporation or organization. The amount of damages awarded pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($2,500.00).”

While there will be no coverage for the child under that statute because of the intentional nature of the act, the parents are usually covered up to the $2,500 under the parents’ homeowners coverage.

Do you have a fairly recent brief on the Statute of Limitations beginning to run from notice of the tort not the date that it occurred.

Answer: No brief and hard to say without knowing your facts. The discovery rule applies to some cases but not to others. See:

Sloan v. Canadian Valley Animal Clinic, 1085 OK CIV APP, 39, 719 P.2d 474: Discovery rule applied where P. contracted brucellosis, while working as a volunteer at D. vet clinic., S.L. ran from time she knew she had disease, not from time she became ill.

Weaver v. Casey, 1991 OK 79, 816 P.2d 1126: SOL does not begin to run until owner of stolen property knows or should know its whereabouts.

Digital Design Group, Inc. v. Information Builders, Inc., 2001 OK 21, 24 P.3d 834: Discovery rule applies to libel action. SOL begins to run only when Plaintiff knew or should have known of libel.

Lovelace v. Keohane, 1992 OK 24, 831 P.2d 624, 11 ALR5th 1061: Plaintiff’s multiple personality disorder was not legal disability tolling SOL; discovery rule did not toll SOL;

The Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation, Inc. v. Vick, 1992 OK ,140. 840 P.2d 619: SOL begins to run on a construction contract from date of completion of the project, even as to a sub-contractor, whose contract was finished earlier. Rejects discovery rule as applied to a construction contract.

Weathers v. Fulgenzi, 1994 OK 119, 884 P.2d 538: Discovery rule applies to adult sex abuse case against psychologist, but statute begins to run when patient realizes wrong and injury.

Riesigner’s Jewelers, Inc. v. Roberson, 1978 OK CIV APP 33, 582 P.2d 409 : “S. of L. as to personal property, though stolen, when held in good faith for value, openly and notoriously” is 2 years, under 12 O.S.A. §95, third, quoting syll. in Burroughs Adding Machine Co. v. Bivins-Corhn Co., 1941 OK 382, 119 P.2d 58; Overrules Burroughs.

Client injured on the job - hit by a car driven for state entity. Can client elect between filing a comp claim or pursuing third-party governmental tort claim?

Answer: You cannot decline Work Comp and thereby have a GTCA claim. 51 O.S. Sec. 155(14) says the state shall not be liable for "Any loss to any person covered by any workers' compensation act or any employer's liability act;" Your client is covered by work comp whether a claim is filed or not. So, the bottom line is you cannot elect. You also cannot recover both and pay subrogation. I would think this also causes the tort-feasor to be uninsured so you can collect UM which, of course, will not be subject to work comp subrogation. So, your client may come out better than you would otherwise expect, assuming your client has UM.