Parental Civil Liability: When Are You Liable for Damage Caused by Your Child?

Parental civil liability for damage caused by minor children is one of the most relevant — and least understood — areas of Spanish Civil Law.

Stray ball strikes, accidents at school, damage to third parties, fights between minors, vandalism or even conduct on social media can all give rise to significant financial claims against parents.

But are parents always liable? Is liability automatic? What happens if the damage was unintentional? What if the minor was at school or playing sport? The answer to these questions is not always straightforward.

In this article we analyse when parental civil liability arises under Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code, the criteria applied by our courts, and what the most recent case law from the Supreme Court and the Provincial Courts of Appeal has to say on the matter.

Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code: the legal basis for parental liability

The starting point is Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides:

«Parents are liable for the damage caused by the children who are in their care.»

This is a form of vicarious liability, traditionally based on what is known as:

culpa in vigilando (failure to supervise), and
culpa in educando (inadequate upbringing or failure to correct the minor’s behaviour).

In other words, the law presumes that parents must exercise reasonable control over their children’s conduct and take the necessary measures to prevent harm to third parties.

Is parental liability automatic?

Not exactly. Although Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code establishes a strong presumption of liability, our courts consistently hold that liability is not entirely objective.

Case law requires an analysis of various factors that may contribute to the damage and the causal link, such as the minor’s age, the nature of the activity being carried out, the location in which it took place, and the foreseeability of the harm.

In this regard, the judgment of the Supreme Court, First Civil Chamber, No. 205/2002, of 8 March, Appeal No. 2950/1996, is one of the most significant pronouncements on this matter.

In that case, a 17-year-old minor struck a young woman who was sitting on a bench in a municipal garden with a powerful kick of a leather football, causing her irreversible eye injuries.

The Supreme Court declared the joint and several liability of the minor and his parents, reasoning that: «The possibility of injuring uninvolved third parties was foreseeable, and easily avoidable had the requisite standard of care and attention been observed.»

The judgment is particularly significant because it clarifies that playing football is not, in itself, a dangerous activity, but it may become a source of liability when certain circumstances are present, such as an inappropriate location, the proximity of third parties, the age of the participants, and the force with which the ball is kicked.

Ball strikes: one of the most common scenarios

Damage caused by minors playing football or basketball is probably the most common example of parental civil liability.

And here, case law is not always consistent.

When liability does arise

The judgment of the Provincial Court of Appeal of Barcelona, Section 17, No. 232/2008 of 5 May 2008, Appeal No. 995/2007, found against the parents of a minor who injured an elderly woman with a ball strike in a pedestrianised square.

The ruling recalled that:

«The civil liability of parents arising from unlawful acts committed by their children is justified by the breach of the duty of supervision.»

And it added a highly relevant criterion:

«This is, in essence, a semi-risk liability with a quasi-objective character.»

In other words, even where there was no intention to cause harm, parents may still be held liable if the court finds that adequate supervision was lacking.

What if the victim also assumed a risk?

One of the most interesting aspects of this area is what is known as contributory negligence.

The Provincial Court of Appeal of Madrid (Judgment No. 436/2008, of 12 June) examined a case in which a minor broke a woman’s glasses with a ball strike in a public park.

However, the court reduced the compensation by 40% because the victim herself was aware that football was regularly played there, had remained close to the playing area, and had therefore partially assumed the existing risk.

This judgment is particularly interesting because it recalls that not all liability necessarily falls on the parents, and that the victim’s own conduct may also influence the quantification of compensation.

This approach is very common in public parks, sports centres or recreational areas where ball games are habitual and socially accepted.

What if the damage occurs between minors who are playing together?

Here the judicial approach changes significantly.

The recent judgment No. 254/2025 of the Provincial Court of Appeal of Barcelona, of 31 March, Appeal No. 876/2023, examined a case in which one minor injured another while both were playing football.

The Provincial Court of Appeal ruled out parental liability on the grounds that the harm occurred within the normal dynamics of the game, there was no intention to cause injury, and no relevant negligent conduct was established.

The judgment states that liability would only arise if the kick had been deliberately aimed at causing harm, «going beyond the recreational purpose of the game.»

This distinction is essential, since damage caused to a third party uninvolved in the game is not the same as damage caused to a participant who has voluntarily accepted the normal risks of the sporting activity.

The fundamental requirement: causation

Another key element is proof of the causal link. It is not sufficient for there to be damage and a minor involved; it must be established what caused the harm and that there is a direct relationship between the minor’s conduct and the loss suffered.

The judgment No. 207/2001 of the Provincial Court of Appeal of La Rioja, of 18 April, Appeal No. 640/1999, rejected the parents’ liability because it could not be established that it was their children who kicked the ball into the road, thereby causing a road traffic accident.

Rulings of this kind are particularly important because they recall that the burden of proof lies with the party claiming compensation.

Are parents liable if the minor was at school?

Not always. When a minor is under the supervision of an educational establishment, liability may shift to the school or its teaching staff. This was the outcome in the judgment of the Provincial Court of Appeal of Vizcaya, Section 3, No. 85/2011 of 17 February 2011, Appeal No. 404/2010.

In that case, a minor caused damage while playing basketball in the school playground after classes had ended.

The Provincial Court of Appeal held that:

the minor was no longer under his parents’ supervision,
but rather under the control of the educational establishment,
and therefore any potential liability fell upon the school.

This approach connects directly with Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code itself, which also provides for the liability of:

heads of educational establishments,
teachers,
and those responsible for educational activities.

The same principle may apply where the damage is caused by a minor who is solely in the care of one of the parents (for example, under a shared custody arrangement).

What if the minor is under guardianship, foster care or legal custody?

Article 1903 of the Spanish Civil Code is not limited to parents. The same vicarious liability extends to guardians, foster carers and legal custodians in respect of minors in their care, as well as to the heads of educational establishments during the period in which the pupil is under their supervision.

The key question is the same in all cases: who had the duty of control at the moment the damage occurred. It is therefore crucial to identify who had care of the minor when the events took place.

Is the minor also criminally liable?

Where a minor is between 14 and 18 years of age, they are answerable for their offences under Organic Law 5/2000, regulating the criminal liability of minors.

Article 61.3 thereof provides that the minor’s parents, guardians, foster carers or legal custodians are jointly and severally liable with the minor for any damages caused. In other words, the existence of criminal liability on the part of the minor does not exclude the civil liability of the parents; in many cases, it reinforces it.

Conclusion

Parental civil liability is not automatic, but it does arise from a strong presumption based on the duty of supervision and upbringing. Whether a claim succeeds will depend on the minor’s age, the location and the activity, the foreseeability of the harm and, above all, proof of the causal link.

Unlike the patrimonial liability of the Administration — as arises, for example, in a fall on a public highway — this concerns civil liability between private individuals, with its own specific requirements and time limits.

Frequently asked questions about parental civil liability

Up to what age are parents liable for their children?

For as long as the child is a minor and remains in their care. Once the child reaches the age of majority, they are personally liable for any damage they cause.

Are parents liable if they are separated or divorced?

In principle, the parent who had custody of the minor at the time of the damage is liable. In cases of shared custody, it will depend on which parent the minor was with when the events occurred.

Does home insurance cover damage caused by children?

Many home insurance policies include a family civil liability cover that may meet these claims. It is advisable to review the policy conditions to confirm the extent of the cover.

We are specialists in non-contractual civil liability claims arising from the acts of third parties. If you have experienced a situation similar to those described in this article, we will very likely be able to help. Get in touch.