Parent defendants were found guilty of violating a snowmobile statute which makes parents vicariously liable for the acts of their children simply because they occupy the status of parents. The parents waived all right to an appeal de novo (“new trial”) to superior court. The parents objected to the constitutionality of the parental responsibility statute. The New Hampshire Supreme Court sustained the objections.

Facts

The defendants are fathers whose minor sons were found guilty of driving snowmobiles in violation of RSA 269-C:6—a II (operating on public way) and III (reasonable speed) (Supp. 1977). RSA 269-C:24 IV, which pertains to the operation and licensing of Off Highway Recreational Vehicles (OHRV), provides that “the parents or guardians or persons assuming responsibility will be responsible for any damage incurred or for any violations of this chapter by any person under the age of 18.” Following a verdict of guilty for violating RSA 269-C:24 IV the two defendants waived all right to an appeal de novo to the superior court and all questions of law were reserved and transferred by the District Court to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.....

1. Exactly what does the New Hampshire statute prohibit?

2. Summarize all of the arguments of the majority and dissenting opinions. Which side do you agree with? Defend your answer.

3. Apart from the legal and constitutional arguments, do you think it’s good public policy to make parents criminally liable for their children’s crimes? Defend your answer.