Intentional torts - Parental discipline

Learning Outcomes

This article explains parental discipline as a defense to intentional torts, including:

• When parental discipline operates as a valid defense to battery, assault, and false imprisonment on the MBE.
• How to identify the boundaries of reasonable force and apply the objective standard to exam fact patterns.
• How to distinguish reasonable discipline from excessive or abusive conduct that creates tort liability.
• Who may invoke the defense, including parents, legal guardians, and those acting in loco parentis such as teachers and caregivers.
• How to differentiate parental discipline from other defenses such as self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and necessity.
• How to spot common MBE traps involving parental immunity, serious injury, disproportionate punishment, and statutory or policy limits on corporal punishment.
• How to apply the doctrine in school and caregiver settings, including public-school corporal punishment scenarios.
• How constitutional parental rights provide background support for the privilege without immunizing abusive conduct or negating child-protective tort rules.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand parental discipline as a defense to intentional torts, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

• Recognition of parental discipline as a privilege/defense to intentional torts (primarily battery and assault).
• The “reasonable force” standard and the objective factors courts use to determine reasonableness.
• Limits of the defense, including when discipline becomes excessive, cruel, or causes serious or lasting harm.
• The extension of the privilege to those in loco parentis (e.g., teachers, guardians, caregivers) and its relationship to school corporal punishment.
• The interaction between parental discipline and constitutional parental rights to direct children’s upbringing (background, not usually outcome-determinative on the MBE).
• Distinguishing parental discipline from other intentional tort defenses, and recognizing exam distractors based on parental anger or the child’s misconduct.
• Awareness that most jurisdictions do not recognize broad “parental immunity” for intentional torts, so liability turns on the discipline privilege, not categorical immunity.
• Understanding that ordinary tort rules, including school corporal punishment rules and due process concepts (e.g., Ingraham v. Wright), frame how courts analyze excessive disciplinary force.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. A parent slaps their 12-year-old child for talking back. The slap leaves a temporary red mark but causes no lasting injury. If the child sues for battery, is the parent liable?
   1. Yes, because any physical contact is battery.
   2. Yes, because the force was excessive.
   3. No, if the force used was reasonable for discipline.
   4. No, because parents are always immune from tort liability.
2. Which of the following best describes the legal standard for parental discipline as a defense to intentional torts?
   1. Any force is allowed if the parent believes it is necessary.
   2. Only force that is reasonable under the circumstances is permitted.
   3. Only non-physical discipline is allowed.
   4. Discipline is never a defense to intentional torts.
3. A father uses a belt to spank his 8-year-old for stealing. The child suffers bruises lasting two weeks. Is the father likely to be liable for battery?
   1. No, because parents may use any means of discipline.
   2. No, because the child misbehaved.
   3. Yes, if the discipline was excessive or unreasonable.
   4. Yes, because all corporal punishment is prohibited.
4. A public school teacher paddles a disruptive 14-year-old three times with a wooden paddle, consistent with school policy. The paddling causes soreness and very light bruising that fades within a couple of days. The student sues for battery. Which is the best answer?
   1. The teacher is liable because corporal punishment in public schools is unconstitutional.
   2. The teacher is not liable if the force was reasonable under a privilege to discipline students.
   3. The teacher is automatically immune because she is a public employee.
   4. The teacher is liable because only parents may physically discipline children.
5. A father locks his 15-year-old son in his bedroom for eight hours as punishment for smoking. The son’s phone is taken away, and he is not allowed to leave even to use the bathroom. The son sues for false imprisonment. Can the father successfully assert the parental discipline defense?
   1. Yes, because any confinement of a minor child is privileged.
   2. Yes, because the child committed a serious rule violation.
   3. No, if the confinement is excessively long or carried out in harmful conditions.
   4. No, because the defense never applies to false imprisonment claims.

Introduction

Parental discipline is a recognized defense to intentional torts such as battery and assault. The law allows parents (and those in loco parentis) to use reasonable force to discipline and control their children. This privilege reflects a broader constitutional principle: parents have a fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children, including decisions about education, moral training, and reasonable discipline.

Key Term: Parental Discipline
Parental discipline is the legal privilege allowing parents or those in loco parentis to use reasonable, non-excessive force to control or discipline their children, serving as a defense to what would otherwise be intentional torts such as battery, assault, and sometimes false imprisonment.

Key Term: Fundamental Parental Rights
Fundamental parental rights are substantive due process rights of parents to make important decisions about the upbringing of their children—including education, religious or secular schooling, and reasonable discipline—subject to the state’s power to protect children from abuse or neglect.

The constitutional right to raise children “as parents see fit” includes the choice of public, private, or religious schools and general child-rearing decisions. But that right is not absolute. The state may intervene when the child’s health or safety is seriously threatened, and tort law is one vehicle for imposing civil liability when discipline becomes abusive.

Although many questions will frame the issue as a battery, the same privilege can apply whenever a parent intentionally uses force that would otherwise satisfy the elements of an intentional tort. The analysis is always the same: Did the parent or caregiver use reasonable force for discipline or control, or did they go too far?

Key Term: Privilege (Intentional Torts)
A privilege in intentional torts is a circumstance in which the law affirmatively authorizes conduct that would otherwise be tortious (e.g., arrest, self-defense, parental discipline), thereby providing a complete defense to liability when the privilege’s conditions are met.

Once you see that the elements of battery, assault, or false imprisonment are satisfied, you must ask whether a privilege—here, parental discipline—applies to negate liability.

Parental Discipline as a Defense

Parents and guardians are permitted to use force to discipline their children, but only to the extent that the force is reasonable and not excessive. The defense applies chiefly to:

• Battery (e.g., spanking, slapping, grabbing)
• Assault (e.g., threatening imminent harmful or offensive contact as part of discipline)
• False imprisonment (e.g., briefly confining a child in a room as a disciplinary measure)

Key Term: Battery (Discipline Context)
Battery in the discipline context is an intentional act by the parent or caregiver that causes harmful or offensive contact with the child’s person, which would be tortious unless justified by a privilege such as parental discipline.

Key Term: Assault (Discipline Context)
Assault in the discipline context is an intentional act placing the child in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact (e.g., raising a belt to strike), which may be privileged if the threatened use of force would be reasonable discipline.

Key Term: False Imprisonment (Discipline Context)
False imprisonment in the discipline context is the intentional confinement of a child within fixed boundaries, without a reasonable means of escape, for a period of time, which may be privileged if the confinement is a reasonable disciplinary measure.

The defense is conceptualized as a privilege: the parent’s conduct is technically an intentional tort (an intentional, harmful or offensive contact, or a confinement), but the law authorizes it when it falls within the reasonable scope of discipline.

This privilege is distinct from:

• Consent: Children are not treated as consenting to corporal punishment. Instead, the law independently authorizes parents to impose reasonable discipline; the child’s agreement or objection is not dispositive.
• Self-defense/Defense of others: Those defenses justify force used to repel an imminent attack. Parental discipline may address past misbehavior (e.g., lying, stealing) or broader behavioral problems and is justified by the parental role, not by an immediate threat.

Key Term: Objective Reasonableness Standard
The objective reasonableness standard asks whether a hypothetical ordinary, prudent person (here, an ordinary prudent parent in similar circumstances) would view the amount and type of force used as appropriate and necessary; it does not turn solely on the actor’s subjective beliefs.

The parent’s subjective good faith matters somewhat—it may make discipline more likely to be judged reasonable—but it is not decisive. A sincerely held belief in extremely harsh punishment will not save conduct that is objectively abusive.

On the MBE, do not confuse parental discipline with doctrines of broad “parental immunity.” Some jurisdictions historically restricted children’s ability to sue parents in negligence, but modern law (and the MBE) assumes that intentional torts by parents are generally actionable unless justified by a specific defense, like parental discipline.

Key Term: Parental Immunity
Parental immunity is a historically recognized limit (now largely eroded) on a child’s ability to sue a parent in tort, especially for negligence; it does not generally bar suits for intentional torts and does not eliminate the need to analyze the parental discipline privilege.

The Reasonableness Standard

The core of the parental discipline defense is reasonableness. Courts ask whether the force used was appropriate in light of all the circumstances. The standard is objective: Would an ordinarily prudent parent in the same situation regard this level and type of force as reasonably necessary?

Key Term: Reasonable Force (Parental Discipline)
Reasonable force (parental discipline) is the amount and type of force that an average, prudent parent would consider necessary and appropriate for discipline or control under the circumstances, judged objectively.

Relevant factors include, and are often weighed together:

• Child’s age, size, and maturity: Younger or more physically vulnerable children generally require gentler methods. Force that might be reasonable for a physically mature teenager (e.g., firm grabbing by the arm) may be excessive for a toddler. A three-year-old cannot be expected to understand or remember complex rules to the same extent as a fifteen-year-old, so the need for physical discipline may diminish as the child matures.

• Seriousness and nature of the child’s conduct: Dangerous or severely disruptive behavior (e.g., running into traffic, physically attacking a sibling, bringing a weapon to school) may justify stronger immediate physical intervention than minor misbehavior such as eye-rolling, backtalk, or a single episode of minor rule-breaking. Discipline for serious dishonesty (e.g., repeated stealing) may also justify somewhat firmer measures than discipline for trivial misconduct.

• Type of force used:

  • Brief, open-handed spanking or grabbing is more likely to be considered reasonable, especially when applied to safer parts of the body (e.g., buttocks) and not the head or face.
  • Use of objects (belts, cords, sticks, paddles) or blows to sensitive areas (face, head, abdomen, groin) is more likely to be deemed excessive, particularly when it predictably causes bruising, lacerations, or other injury.
  • Use of inherently dangerous methods (e.g., whipping with an electrical cord, striking with a closed fist, choking) almost always signals excessive discipline unless the contact is extremely minor and the fact pattern explicitly points toward reasonableness.

• Degree and duration of force: A short, controlled spanking may be permissible; a prolonged beating is not. Multiple blows, extended restraint, or repeated punishments for the same incident increase the likelihood that the force will be viewed as excessive. A single slap may sometimes fall within reasonable discipline, but repeated slaps in rapid succession, especially after the child is subdued or compliant, point to abuse.

• Extent and duration of injury: Transient pain or temporary redness is more compatible with reasonable discipline. Injuries such as broken bones, deep or widespread bruises, cuts requiring stitches, burns, or long-lasting physical or psychological harm strongly suggest excessive force. On MBE fact patterns, descriptions of “serious,” “lasting,” or “permanent” injury almost always negate the privilege.

• Parent’s knowledge of special vulnerabilities: Force that would ordinarily be reasonable may become unreasonable if the parent knows—or should know—that the child has a special medical condition (e.g., brittle bone disease, a bleeding disorder, heart condition) or a particular psychological vulnerability (e.g., trauma history), and still uses force with a high risk of serious harm.

• Context and motivation: Courts sometimes consider whether the discipline appears primarily instructional and controlled, or whether it reflects uncontrolled anger or frustration. Mere anger does not automatically defeat the privilege, but when force appears to be retaliatory or vengeful rather than corrective, it is more likely to be judged unreasonable.

Reasonableness is usually a question of fact, but on the MBE extreme fact patterns will push you clearly toward either “reasonable discipline” or “excessive force.” When the facts are borderline, carefully weigh all the factors, with particular attention to the severity of the injury and the child’s vulnerability.

Limits of the Defense

The defense of parental discipline does not protect parents who use force that is excessive, cruel, or results in significant injury. Discipline that is grossly disproportionate to the child’s conduct, uses dangerous methods, or causes lasting harm is not privileged.

Key Term: Excessive Discipline
Excessive discipline is force or punishment by a parent or person in loco parentis that exceeds what an objectively reasonable parent would use under the circumstances, often characterized by cruelty, disproportionality, or serious injury, and therefore not protected by the parental discipline privilege.

Categories of conduct that commonly fall outside the privilege:

• Repeated punching, kicking, or choking.
• Striking the child’s head or face with a closed fist.
• Beating with hard or sharp objects likely to cause serious injury (e.g., metal rods, heavy sticks).
• Using electric cords, whips, or other instruments in a way that leaves welts or deep bruises.
• Restraining a child for an extended period in painful or degrading conditions (e.g., tying the child to furniture, confinement in a dark closet).
• Conduct motivated primarily by anger, humiliation, or revenge, rather than instruction or control.

Furthermore:

• Severe or lasting harm (e.g., broken nose, fractured ribs, organ damage, serious emotional trauma) almost always indicates excessive discipline.
• Humiliating or degrading punishment (e.g., forcing a child to endure public shaming combined with physical harm) may support liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress, even if the physical force alone might otherwise appear minor.

Key Term: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Discipline Context)
Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) in the discipline context involves extreme and outrageous disciplinary conduct that intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress to the child; reasonable discipline will not meet this high threshold, but humiliating or cruel punishments sometimes will.

Another important limit concerns duration and conditions of confinement. Temporarily sending a child to their room as a “time-out” is often reasonable; locking a child in a bedroom all weekend without food or bathroom access is not. Even when the initial decision to confine is justified, continuing confinement under harsh conditions can cross the line into false imprisonment and possibly IIED.

Lastly, the privilege covers intentional uses of force for discipline. It does not shield parents from liability for separate tortious conduct unrelated to discipline (e.g., intentional torts motivated by personal animus, or reckless disregard for the child’s safety, such as intentionally driving recklessly with the child as a passenger for amusement).

Who May Claim the Defense

The privilege extends to those who have parental responsibility for the child’s care and supervision.

• Parents and legal guardians: These are the core holders of the privilege. Biological parents, adoptive parents, and legal guardians all generally share the right (and duty) to discipline and control the child, subject to reasonableness limits.

• Step-parents and court-appointed caretaking parents: Step-parents and court-appointed caretaking parents usually have some disciplinary authority, especially when they live with or are legally responsible for the child. Courts often treat them similarly to parents, but the exact scope may depend on the specific legal arrangements and expectations.

• Those in loco parentis: Individuals who are temporarily responsible for the child’s care and supervision, such as teachers, school administrators, coaches, and certain caregivers, may rely on a similar privilege, though sometimes more limited in scope.

Key Term: In Loco Parentis
In loco parentis describes a person who temporarily assumes parental responsibilities and authority over a child—such as teachers, school officials, or long-term caregivers—allowing them to impose reasonable discipline and control within the scope of that role.

The scope of the privilege for non-parents is determined by:

• The nature and duration of the relationship (full-time teacher vs. occasional babysitter).
• The expectations reasonably implied by the role or explicitly authorized by the parent (e.g., parents may expressly permit or forbid corporal punishment by a babysitter).
• Statutory restrictions and school policies (some jurisdictions limit or prohibit corporal punishment in schools).

In general, the more responsibility and authority the person has over the child’s welfare and behavior, and the more stable the relationship, the broader the permissible scope of discipline—within the same basic reasonableness constraints.

Key Term: Scope of Authority (In Loco Parentis)
Scope of authority (in loco parentis) refers to the range of actions and disciplinary measures a person standing in the place of a parent is reasonably authorized to take, based on their role, the parents’ instructions, and applicable laws or policies.

Teachers and Corporal Punishment

Teachers and school officials in many jurisdictions have a common law privilege to use reasonable corporal punishment to maintain order and discipline. This is reinforced by constitutional decisions addressing corporal punishment in public schools.

The Supreme Court has held that:

• Corporal punishment in public schools implicates a student’s liberty interest, but
• The traditional state tort remedies for excessive punishment (e.g., suits for battery) satisfy procedural due process; a prior hearing is not constitutionally required.

In other words, the Constitution does not ban reasonable corporal punishment in public schools; it leaves regulation largely to state law and tort remedies. Excessive punishment, however, can lead to tort liability.

Key Term: Corporal Punishment in Public Schools
Corporal punishment in public schools is the intentional infliction of physical pain (such as paddling or spanking) by teachers or school officials as a disciplinary measure, traditionally privileged if reasonable but subject to tort liability if excessive.

On the MBE, a teacher may generally assert the same type of “reasonable discipline” privilege as a parent, but within the limits of school policy and statutory law. If the facts show that school policy or state statute forbids corporal punishment, that can undercut any claim of privilege. More commonly, the exam simply describes the force used and expects you to apply the same reasonableness analysis used for parents.

Non-school caregivers—such as babysitters, daycare workers, camp counselors, or coaches—may also act in loco parentis, but their authority may be narrower, especially where parents have clearly limited disciplinary methods (e.g., “no hitting”) or where relevant regulations restrict physical discipline (such as daycare licensing rules). When facts show that parents expressly prohibited corporal punishment, a caregiver who ignores those instructions is unlikely to be protected by the privilege.

Parental Discipline vs. Other Defenses

It is important to distinguish parental discipline from other justifications, because the same conduct can potentially fall under multiple doctrines:

• Self-defense / Defense of others: A parent who uses force to stop a child from attacking another person may rely on defense of others, just like any adult. This defense requires a reasonable belief that someone (including the child or a sibling) is in imminent danger of harmful or offensive contact. If the parent then punishes the child afterward for the attack, that punishment is analyzed separately under parental discipline.

• Defense of property: A parent cannot justify harsh corporal punishment solely as “defense of property,” especially when the property interest is minor compared to the risk of injury to the child. For instance, hitting a child with a belt for breaking a cheap toy is evaluated under the parental discipline standard, not defense of property, and is likely unreasonable if it causes substantial injury.

• Necessity / Protection: If a parent physically restrains a child to prevent immediate danger—pulling the child out of traffic, holding the child down during a violent outburst, or grabbing a toddler to prevent a fall—this conduct can be justified independently as necessity or a defense-of-others type response to imminent harm. When the restraint is prolonged or repeated as punishment after the danger has passed, the parental discipline privilege must be invoked.

The exam may present overlapping justifications. Identify the primary purpose of the force:

• If the force is to stop or prevent immediate harm, analyze self-defense, defense of others, or necessity.
• If the force is to punish or correct behavior after the fact, analyze parental discipline.

The correct answer choice may mention both, but the reasoning about reasonableness will mirror the parental discipline analysis in either case.

Worked Example 1.1

A mother grabs her 10-year-old son's arm and firmly pulls him away from a busy street after he refuses to stop running toward traffic. The child suffers minor discomfort but no injury. The child sues for battery. Is the mother liable?

Answer:
No. The force used was reasonable to protect and discipline the child, so the parental discipline defense applies. The mother’s conduct would also be justified as a necessity or defense-of-others type response to imminent danger. The lack of injury, the child’s dangerous behavior, and the minimal force all support reasonableness.

Worked Example 1.2

A father, angry at his teenager for skipping school, punches the child in the face, causing a broken nose. The child sues for battery. Can the father claim the parental discipline defense?

Answer:
No. Punching a child in the face hard enough to break the nose is clearly excessive and not reasonable discipline. The defense does not apply, and the father is liable for battery. The serious injury, the vulnerable location (the face), and the disproportionate response to skipping school are key signals that the privilege fails.

Worked Example 1.3

A mother gives her 8-year-old son three quick swats on the buttocks with her open hand for lying about homework. The child cries and has mild redness for an hour but no bruising. He later sues for battery.

Answer:
The mother is not liable. Brief spanking with an open hand, causing only transient redness and pain, is within the range of force many courts regard as reasonable parental discipline, especially in response to deliberate misconduct such as lying. The minor, temporary effects and the didactic purpose support the privilege.

Worked Example 1.4

A teacher in a public school paddles a 13-year-old student twice for disrupting class, consistent with school policy. The paddling causes mild bruising that lasts several days. The student sues the teacher for battery.

Answer:
The teacher is likely not liable. As a person in loco parentis, the teacher may use reasonable corporal punishment to maintain discipline, subject to school policy and statutory limits. Two controlled swats, causing minor temporary bruising, fall within the range that a jury could find reasonable. If the paddling were significantly more severe, used a dangerous implement, or flagrantly violated school policy, the privilege would fail.

Worked Example 1.5

Parents tell a babysitter that she may “use time-outs but no hitting” when watching their 6-year-old. The babysitter later becomes frustrated and slaps the child several times, leaving noticeable bruises for a week. The child sues the babysitter for battery.

Answer:
The babysitter is liable. Even if a babysitter might sometimes act in loco parentis, here the parents expressly limited her authority to non-physical discipline. Slapping the child, especially with resulting bruises, exceeds any implied privilege and constitutes an unprivileged battery. Both the violation of parental instructions and the extent of injury indicate unreasonable discipline.

Worked Example 1.6

A father locks his 15-year-old daughter in her bedroom for 20 minutes after she returns home several hours past curfew. The daughter sues for false imprisonment.

Answer:
The father can likely invoke the parental discipline privilege. Brief confinement in a safe room, as a measured response to serious rule-breaking, can be considered reasonable discipline. The limited duration, absence of unsafe conditions, and connection to misconduct support reasonableness. If the confinement were prolonged (e.g., many hours or days) or involved unsafe or degrading conditions, it would be more likely to be deemed excessive and tortious.

Worked Example 1.7

A mother lightly taps her 3-year-old’s hand to stop him from touching a hot stove. The child feels momentary pain but suffers no injury. He later sues for battery through a guardian.

Answer:
The mother is not liable. The light tap is a minimal use of force reasonably necessary to protect the child from immediate danger and to teach him to avoid the stove. The conduct is privileged both as necessity/self-defense (protecting the child from harm) and as reasonable parental discipline. The absence of injury and the high risk of harm from the stove make this clearly reasonable.

Worked Example 1.8

A stepfather has lived with and helped raise his 9-year-old stepdaughter for five years. After she repeatedly hits her younger brother, he spanks her with his open hand three times on the buttocks. She has temporary redness but no bruising. She sues him for battery.

Answer:
The stepfather is likely not liable. As a long-term parental figure, he stands in a role functionally identical to that of a parent and may invoke the parental discipline privilege. The limited, open-handed spanking in response to physical aggression toward a sibling is within a range many courts regard as reasonable discipline.

Worked Example 1.9

A high school coach, angered by a player’s poor performance, repeatedly slaps the player across the face in front of the team, leaving a bloody nose and a black eye. The student sues for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Answer:
The coach is likely liable for both battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. While a coach may have some disciplinary authority in loco parentis, repeatedly striking a student’s face, causing serious visible injuries and humiliation, is grossly disproportionate to performance issues and is not reasonable discipline. The public, degrading nature of the punishment supports liability for IIED as well.

Worked Example 1.10

A father discovers his 16-year-old son has been secretly drinking alcohol. In anger, he locks the son in the basement overnight, with no access to a bathroom and minimal food or water. The son sues for false imprisonment and IIED.

Answer:
The father is likely liable. Even though underage drinking is serious misconduct, confining a child overnight in a basement without basic necessities is excessive, degrading, and dangerous. The duration and harsh conditions of the confinement go beyond reasonable discipline and amount to unprivileged false imprisonment, and the humiliating and dangerous nature of the confinement may also satisfy the elements of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, do not assume all parental discipline is protected or that all corporal punishment is forbidden. Always analyze whether the force was reasonable under an objective standard:

• When the facts highlight serious physical injury, use of dangerous implements, repeated blows, or prolonged harsh confinement, the defense will likely fail even if the child misbehaved.
• When the facts describe modest physical force, short duration, minimal or transient injury, and a clear disciplinary purpose, the privilege often applies.

Also, do not let personal views about corporal punishment override the legal standard. Some jurisdictions, or school districts, have sharply restricted corporal punishment, but the exam usually expects you to apply the general common law framework unless specific statutes or policies are given in the fact pattern.

Revision Tip

When working MBE questions involving parental discipline, look for:

• Details about the child's age, size, and vulnerability.
• The seriousness of the misbehavior and presence of immediate danger.
• The method, location, and duration of physical contact or confinement.
• The extent and duration of injury (e.g., temporary redness vs. broken bones).
• The role of the actor (parent, stepparent, teacher, babysitter) and any limits on their authority (e.g., “no hitting”).
• Whether the purpose appears primarily protective (immediate danger) or punitive (punishment after the fact).

These details are important in determining whether the parental discipline privilege applies and in distinguishing it from other defenses such as self-defense or necessity.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Parental discipline operates as a privilege/defense to intentional torts only if the force used is reasonable under an objective standard.
• The defense applies primarily to battery and assault, and sometimes to false imprisonment, where confinement is used as a disciplinary measure.
• Reasonableness is assessed by considering the child’s age and size, the seriousness of the conduct, the type and degree of force, the duration of discipline, the extent of injury, and any special vulnerabilities.
• Excessive, cruel, or grossly disproportionate discipline—especially conduct causing serious or lasting harm or involving dangerous methods—falls outside the privilege and results in tort liability.
• Parental discipline can sometimes give rise not only to liability for battery or false imprisonment, but also for intentional infliction of emotional distress when the punishment is extreme and humiliating.
• The privilege extends to parents, legal guardians, and those in loco parentis (such as teachers, step-parents, coaches, and some caregivers) acting within the scope of their authority and any applicable statutes or policies.
• Teachers may use reasonable corporal punishment in some jurisdictions; excessive punishment exposes them to ordinary tort liability, and constitutional law (e.g., Ingraham) relies on state tort remedies to address abuse.
• The privilege does not automatically extend to all caregivers; babysitters or daycare workers who exceed parental instructions or statutory limits on corporal punishment will often lack a valid defense.
• Parental discipline is distinct from defenses like self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and necessity; the primary purpose of the force (protection vs. punishment) determines which defense is applicable.
• Constitutional fundamental parental rights support, but do not expand, the tort privilege; they do not immunize parents from liability for abusive conduct, and the state may still intervene to protect children.
• Historical doctrines of broad parental immunity do not generally bar suits for intentional torts on the MBE; liability usually turns on whether the discipline privilege applies.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Parental Discipline
• Fundamental Parental Rights
• Privilege (Intentional Torts)
• Objective Reasonableness Standard
• Reasonable Force (Parental Discipline)
• Excessive Discipline
• Battery (Discipline Context)
• Assault (Discipline Context)
• False Imprisonment (Discipline Context)
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (Discipline Context)
• Parental Immunity
• In Loco Parentis
• Scope of Authority (In Loco Parentis)
• Corporal Punishment in Public Schools