Vandalism by Children

My question involves criminal law for the state of: MS

About a month ago, 8 kids ranging in ages from 11-14 snuck into my storage warehouse and broke about $8000 worth of my inventory. They were recorded on video and after a short investigation the police dept. caught them all.

After interviewing the parents, some are willing to pay for the damages and some say they shouldnt have to pay equally since their kids didnt break as much. The investigator told me if I take payment from any parent, I cant press charges on the other's kids. He also said if I press charges on all kids, it is very unlikely I will get all the restitution from a court. He said I can take payment from parents who are willing, and sue the ones who are not willing.

My question is how should I proceed, and what should I expect?

There are multiple charges that can be brought. Breaking and entering all are guilty of. Vandalism some are. Clarify this issue with your lawyer as well as the list of damages by each kid, via video with those undetermined assigned to all involved. See what the reimbursement would be.

Quote:

---

§ 93-13-2. Civil liability of parents for damages resulting from malicious and willful acts of certain minor children.

(1) Any property owner shall be entitled to recover damages in an amount not to exceed Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00), plus necessary court costs, from the parents of any minor under the age of eighteen (18) years and over the age of ten (10), who maliciously and willfully damages or destroys property belonging to such owner. However, this section shall not apply to parents whose parental custody and control of such child have been removed by court order or decree.
(2) The action authorized in this section shall be in addition to all other actions which the owner is entitled to maintain and nothing in this section shall preclude recovery in a greater amount from the minor or from any person, including the parents, for damages to which such minor or other person would otherwise be liable.
(3) It is the purpose of this section to authorize recovery from parents in situations where they are not otherwise liable and to limit the amount of recovery. The provisions of this section shall apply only to acts committed on and after July 1, 1978.

---

I see nothing that would preclude the state from prosecuting the offenders if you exercise your rights under this law.

and it is not going to be an equal division. Only the parents of the offenders that damaged property would be liable for their own children's damages. The parents of those who entered the building but did not damage anything would not be liable for the damages caused by other;'s chilren.

BTW, if these kids do not have criminal records and you get reimbursed, perhaps the prosecutor could organize a community service penalty for each child in lieu of prosecuting them for the crimes.

Quote:

---

Quoting Disagreeable

---

BTW, if these kids do not have criminal records and you get reimbursed, perhaps the prosecutor could organize a community service penalty for each child in lieu of prosecuting them for the crimes.

---

they have to prosecute to be able to demand the kids perform community service. It could end up with a deferred adjudication or dismissal upon completion of the penalty but the courts cannot force a person to do anything unless they prosecute them.

That depends on the size of the city. It is possible parents will get those kids out there working to avoid a court visit. Depends on the city. Of course I am from a small town in OH where showing respect to the police is when you see them after you passed them at 15 over and hit your breaks lowering to the proper speed limit. Once you show them you are aware you are breaking the law and respect their authority, they don't bother you.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

they have to prosecute to be able to demand the kids perform community service. It could end up with a deferred adjudication or dismissal upon completion of the penalty but the courts cannot force a person to do anything unless they prosecute them.

---

I don't really care about the community service and all that, my question is in regards to the best way of being reimbursed when some parents are willing and some are not.

If the damages occurred to inventory related to a business; I'd first go after reimbursement from my insurance company. THEN I'd see where I stood before having to potentially take up so much time and energy pursuing multiple cases against the parents of the offenders. If you're planning to sue the parents in civil court, be aware that having a court order in hand and actually GETTING the money are two different things. Parents who don't HAVE the money aren't going to pay, and parents who have the money but don't WANT to pay are going to make it as hard as possible for you; leaving you with the option of going BACK to court to attempt things like leins, garnishments, etc.

You might also talk with the warehouse management about how these kids were able to access your warehouse and cause the damages to your inventory.

If you have the names and pictures (yearbook) of the kids. The video should show who the ones that did what damage are. Make a list with the damages done by each kid. Then talk to those parents.

If they all broke in together and were acting together, then the theory would be one of joint and several liability, not one involving trying to figure out who did what and sending separate bills for part of the damage.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mississippi Code, Sec. 85-5-7. Limitation of joint and several liability for damages caused by two or more persons; contribution between joint tortfeasors; determination of percentage of fault; liability of medical defendants for economic and noneconomic damages

---

(1) As used in this section, "fault" means an act or omission of a person which is a proximate cause of injury or death to another person or persons, damages to property, tangible or intangible, or economic injury, including, but not limited to, negligence, malpractice, strict liability, absolute liability or failure to warn. "Fault" shall not include any tort which results from an act or omission committed with a specific wrongful intent.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (4) of this section, in any civil action based on fault, the liability for damages caused by two (2) or more persons shall be several only, and not joint and several and a joint tort-feasor shall be liable only for the amount of damages allocated to him in direct proportion to his percentage of fault. In assessing percentages of fault an employer and the employer's employee or a principal and the principal's agent shall be considered as one (1) defendant when the liability of such employer or principal has been caused by the wrongful or negligent act or omission of the employee or agent.

(3) Nothing in this section shall eliminate or diminish any defenses or immunities which currently exist, except as expressly noted herein.

(4) Joint and several liability shall be imposed on all who consciously and deliberately pursue a common plan or design to commit a tortious act, or actively take part in it. Any person held jointly and severally liable under this section shall have a right of contribution from his fellow defendants acting in concert.

(5) In actions involving joint tort-feasors, the trier of fact shall determine the percentage of fault for each party alleged to be at fault without regard to whether the joint tort-feasor is immune from damages. Fault allocated under this subsection to an immune tort-feasor or a tort-feasor whose liability is limited by law shall not be reallocated to any other tort-feasor.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be construed to create a cause of action. Nothing in this section shall be construed, in any way, to alter the immunity of any person.

---

Quote:

---

Quoting Dustin Stewart

---

The investigator told me if I take payment from any parent, I cant press charges on the other's kids. He also said if I press charges on all kids, it is very unlikely I will get all the restitution from a court. He said I can take payment from parents who are willing, and sue the ones who are not willing.

---

To me, this sounds like a lazy investigator who is trying to get rid of the case.