Also known as: parent child immunity doctrine · parent-child immunity · parental immunity doctrine · parental immunity · family immunity doctrine
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A common-law doctrine that barred an unemancipated minor from suing a parent for ordinary negligence arising out of the exercise of parental authority, supervision, or discretion within the family relationship. The rule rested on preserving family harmony and parental autonomy. Modern authority has largely repudiated any blanket bar based solely on the parent-child relationship.
Daniel told his twelve-year-old daughter Lily to drive an old tractor without a roll bar along a steep drainage ditch on the family farm. The tractor overturned and injured Lily. Lily, through a guardian, sued Daniel for negligence in assigning the dangerous task. Daniel moved to dismiss solely on the ground that the parent-child relationship barred the claim.
Adrian regularly took his fourteen-year-old daughter Lynne on truck routes to strengthen their bond. One snowy afternoon he drove at excessive speed on an icy highway to reach her parent-teacher conference. The truck hit black ice, left the road, and injured Lynne. Lynne sued Adrian for negligence in operating the vehicle.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
No. Modern authority rejects any blanket immunity based solely on the parent-child relationship. A child may bring an ordinary negligence claim against a parent unless the specific conduct falls within a limited sphere of protected parental discretion such as reasonable discipline or supervision.
Supporting sources
Conduct remains privileged when it constitutes a core parenting decision about discipline, supervision, or family welfare that would not be tortious apart from the relationship. Commercial or workplace negligence, such as disabling a safety guard on industrial equipment, falls outside that protected sphere.
Supporting sources
No. Distracted driving or excessive speed on known hazards is treated as ordinary negligence, not a protected parental function. The parent-child relationship supplies no defense to such claims.
Supporting sources
When the parent's conduct occurs in a public commercial setting, such as operating a retail store or directing a child to work on industrial equipment, ordinary negligence standards apply. The parent-child relationship does not shield decisions made to further business purposes.
Supporting sources