Rathburn v. Kaio

Citations

• 23 Haw. 541
• 1916 Haw. LEXIS 46

Syllabus

<p>Parent and Child — infants—liability of father for torts of minor child.</p> <p>At common law a father was not liable, merely because of the relation, for the torts of his child. And under R. L. 1915, Secs. 2375 and 2993, the father is responsible for the torts of a minor child only in case the child itself could be held liable.</p> <p>Infants — liability for negligence.</p> <p>An infant who has passed out of the realm of mere childish instincts may be held liable for the consequences of his negligence, but not where the negligence consists of a mere breach of contract.</p> <p>Statutes — construction.</p> <p>If a literal interpretation of the language used in a statute would lead to palpable injustice the courts will search for a more reasonable meaning of the language which will also accord with the spirit of the enactment.</p> <p>Same — statute in derogation of the common law.</p> <p>A statute in derogation of the common law is to be construed strictly, and the common law will be held not to have been further abrogated than the language of the act clearly requires.</p>