Legal Question in Real Estate Law in California

Hard to say -- depends upon the child's age and maturity, whether the child acted deliberately or it was nrgligence an accident, and perhaps upon the parent's knowledge of the child's propensities and whether it were adequately supervised at the time the laptop was broken.

There is some legal authority for the proposition that children are personally liable for harm resulting from their deliberate acts. The parent could, as a practical matter, also be found liable under a theory of negligent supervision, under the conditions and subject to the limitations in the cases excerpted below (from the standard jury instructions book).

In general, it is often better for the parent to settle up rather than risk a lawsuit, even in small claims, because of (a) hard feelings and (b) the likelihood of losing.

"While it is the rule in California . . . that there is no vicarious liability on a parent for the torts of a child there is �another rule of the law relating to the torts of minors, which is somewhat in the nature of an exception, and that is that a parent may become liable for an injury caused by the child where the parent�s negligence made it possible for the child to cause the injury complained of, and probable that it would do so.� � (Ellis v. D�Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 317 [253 P.2d 675], internal citations omitted.)

��Parents are responsible for harm caused by their children only when it has been shown that �the parents as reasonable persons previously became aware of habits or tendencies of the infant which made it likely that the child would misbehave so that they should have restrained him in apposite conduct and actions.� � (Reida v. Lund (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 698, 702 [96 Cal.Rptr. 102], internal citation omitted.)

��In cases where the parent did not observe the child�s conduct which led to the injury, the parent has been held liable where he had been aware of the child�s dangerous propensity or habit and negligently failed to exercise proper control or negligently failed to give appropriate warning. In other cases, where the parent did not observe and was not in a position to control the conduct which endangered the plaintiff, recovery was denied on the ground that there was no showing that the parent knew of any dangerous tendency. What is said about �propensity� or �habit� in those cases has no applicability where the parent is present and observes the dangerous behavior and has an opportunity to exercise control but neglects to do so.� (Costello v. Hart (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 898, 900�901 [100 Cal.Rptr. 554], internal citations omitted.)

�� �The ability to control the child, rather than the relationship as such, is the basis for a finding of liability on the part of a parent� [The] absence of such ability is fatal to a claim of legal responsibility.� The ability to control is inferred from the relationship of parent to minor child, as it is from the relationship of custodian to charge; yet it may be disproved by the circumstances surrounding the particular situation.� (Robertson v. Wentz (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1281, 1290 [232 Cal.Rptr. 634], internal citations omitted.)

Whoever broke it, and/or their parents/guardians can be sued for it.