Dent operates a residential rehabilitation center for emotionally disturbed and ungovernable children who have been committed to his custody by their parents or by juvenile authorities. The center's purpose is to modify the behavior of the children through a teaching program carried out in a family-like environment. Though the children are not permitted to leave the center without Dent's permission, there are no bars or guards to prevent them from doing so. It has been held in the state where the center is located that persons having custody of children have the same duties and responsibilities that they would have if they were the parents of the children. Camden, aged 12, who had been in Dent's custody for six months, left the center without permission. Dent became aware of Camden's absence almost immediately, but made no attempt to locate him or secure his return, though reports reached him that Camden had been seen in the vicinity. Thirtysix hours after Camden left the center, Camden committed a brutal assault upon Pell, a fiveyear-old child, causing Pell to suffer extensive permanent injury. If an action is brought against Dent on behalf of Pell to recover damages for Pell's injuries, will Pell prevail?
No, because parents are not personally liable for their child's intentional torts.  Yes, if Camden was old enough to be liable for battery.  Yes, because Camden was in Dent's custody.  No, unless Dent knew or had reason to know that Camden had a propensity to attack younger children. 