The home owners association had pretty much nothing to do with this...on what grounds is she suing?
It's important to understand the levels of liability, vicarious liability, strict liability, the affect on damages, whether a state allows for comparative negligence, etc. Many, many factors are involved.
So failure at parenting is rewarded now?
How is that a failure at parenting? I had absolutely wonderful parents yet was a much worse kid at his age. I landed in an ivy league college and great career.
I believe that if the homeowner's society wants to sponsor an armed neighborhood watch unit, or if they know it is going on and give their blessing, they must assume some liability. They should have hired armed security or ensured those patrolling armed were trained as armed guards. They should have specifically insured themselves for such.
Based on my own experiences in civil actions she'll probably win if it goes to trial. The HOA will settle this and be glad to be done with it. The insurance company representing the HOA will weigh the cost of litigation against the $75K and will quickly find that the cost of litigation is much higher than $75K.
According to the timeless publication "Prosser & Keeton On Torts," negligence can be considered when there is a recognizable and unreasonable potential of injury or harm resulting from actions of the HOA (in sanctioning GZ as an armed neighborhood watchman for which he was untrained) that falls below the standard generally established by law (armed guard training / license) the purpose of which is to protect others against the risk of harm. In most cases of negligence the negligent party is unaware of the results that may follow their act (in acknowledging GZ as an armed watch commander). It applies even when the negligent party has exercised his best judgment . Regardless, the standard generally is applied based on one's actions (the HOA) as behavior which should have been recognized as involving unreasonable danger to others. It is sometimes more "misfeasance" (a mistake) than "malfeasance" (intentional) and generally doesn't include the element of intent unless the defendants behavior was willful or wanton. In this case I don't believe the HOA's actions were willful or wanton but were ignorantly reckless. Thus a jury may not award a large punitive damage but must rather consider only damages that are compensatory and consequential in nature.
The entire theory of negligence is generally based on the standard of the reasonable person... some uniform standard of care that must be employed by those in charge. The standards of "knowledge, skill and intelligence" also come into play. Persons acting in a professional capacity whether for compensation or of their own doing, who undertake any task calling for special skill, are not only required to exercise reasonable care in what they do, but also must posses, by training or licensure a standard minimum of special knowledge and ability. In undertaking to render certain services, even though gratuitously, the defendant is considered to have held himself out as having the requisite skills and training.
Thus the HOA can hope to limit their comparative negligence by claiming GZ held himself out to be sufficiently trained to undertake such a responsibility.
The application of the standard of conduct defines the standard as a community one and evidences the usual and customary conduct of others under similar circumstances. Such is normally relevant and admissable as what the community regards as proper and a composite judgment as to the risks of the situation and the precautions required to meet them.
I realize this is a little deep for the average person to understand. But it illustrates there is much more to the subject than "is someone looking for a payout" or "was someone a bad mother." For anyone running their own business I highly recommend reading this book to gain an understanding of the many ways we may be inadvertantly negligent without any intent to be such.
