Which of the following is an exception to the general rule that parents are not vicariously liable for their minor child's torts?

Vicarious liability generally holds that a parent is not responsible for the tortious acts of their minor child. However, one notable exception arises when the child is acting as the parent's agent during the commission of the tort. In this scenario, the law recognizes that the parent has a certain level of control and responsibility over the child's actions, thus creating a basis for vicarious liability.

When a child is carrying out a task specifically directed by the parent, or when the child is acting on behalf of the parent in a role that benefits the parent, the parent may be held liable for any wrongful acts committed by the child. This concept revolves around the authority given to the child as an agent and underscores the parent's responsibility for actions taken under that authority.

The other options do not support the notion of vicarious liability in the same way. For instance, reaching the age of majority usually denotes that the individual is legally responsible for their own actions, thus removing the potential for parental liability. Similarly, situations where the child is at school or engaging in sports activities typically do not link the parent's responsibility to the child's conduct in the same way, as schools and organized sports usually have their own liability frameworks separate from parental oversight.