## Facts

- Dona M. Kerins owned a building that was destroyed by arson committed by a juvenile, Christopher Rule, and two other juveniles.
- At the time of the arson, Rule lived with John and Jean Lima as a foster child placed under the state foster-care system; the Limas were paid by the Commonwealth to provide temporary care.
- Kerins sued the Limas under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85G, which imposes limited civil liability on “parents” for the willful acts of their unemancipated minor children that cause property damage.
- The Limas were not Rule’s biological or adoptive parents; their relationship to Rule arose from foster-care placement and contract with the state.

## Issues

1. Whether “parents” in Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85G includes foster parents, making them civilly liable for a foster child’s willful torts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed dismissal of the action against the Limas.
- The court held that “parents” in § 85G does not include foster parents.
- Because the statute created liability not recognized at common law, the court construed it narrowly and declined to extend it beyond natural or adoptive parents.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes imposing parental vicarious liability for a child’s torts, as departures from common law, are construed strictly and not expanded beyond clear legislative direction.
- In interpreting such statutes, courts consider ordinary meaning, common-law background, the statute as a whole, and legislative history.
- Foster parents, who provide temporary care under the state foster-care scheme and contractual arrangements with the Commonwealth, are not “parents” for purposes of § 85G absent explicit legislative inclusion.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that the parental liability statute applies to natural or adoptive parents, not foster parents, and therefore the foster parents could not be held liable under § 85G for property damage caused by their foster child’s willful arson.


Kerins v. Lima, 425 Mass. 108, 680 N.E.2d 32 (Mass. 1997)