In this case, a hospital sought restitution from a father for the delinquent and destructive acts performed by his son while the child was a patient at the hospital. The appellate court held that vicarious liability for the delinquent and destructive acts of a minor child may constitutionally be imposed upon a parent as long as the parent has legal custody of the child, irrespective of who possessed actual physical custody of the child at the time the acts were performed. The court struck a balance between legislative intent and the constitutionality of the parental liability statute. The court concluded that the constitutionality of imposing vicarious liability upon parents for the destructive acts of their minor children hinges on where legal custody of the child rests. Liability may constitutionally be imposed upon parents only where, at the minimum, they hold legal custody of the child. Footnotes