§ 134.003.Liability

Two sentences creating two distinct liabilities.

Subsection (a): a person who commits theft is liable for the damages resulting from the theft.

Subsection (b): a parent or other person who has the duty of control and reasonable discipline of a child is liable for theft committed by the child.

The parental liability is strict as the section states it. There is no requirement that the parent was negligent, knew of the child’s conduct, or could have prevented it. The duty of control is the trigger, and the theft is the act.

"Or other person who has the duty of control" reaches beyond parents — a guardian or another adult standing in that position is within it.

The recovery provision treats the two on entirely separate terms, and that is where the practical limit sits. A direct thief faces actual damages plus up to $1,000; a parent faces actual damages capped at $5,000 and no additional award.

So the parent’s exposure is bounded in a way the thief’s is not, which is what makes the strict formulation tolerable.

"Damages resulting from the theft" is the measure for subsection (a), and it is causal rather than confined to the value of the property — consequential loss flowing from the taking is within the words.