Also known as: parental immunities · parent-child immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A doctrine that bars 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 doctrine rests on preserving family harmony and parental autonomy. Modern authority has largely abolished the broad version of the rule.
Priscilla Parks directed her twelve-year-old son to operate an old tractor without a roll bar near a steep ditch on the family property. The tractor overturned and injured the boy. When the son sued through a guardian, the court applied parental immunity to bar the ordinary negligence claim because the conduct involved parental discretion in supervising a child.
Pedro Pacheco drove his daughter across state lines during a family trip. An accident occurred and the daughter sued for negligence. The court examined whether the forum state's choice-of-law rules would recognize parental immunity from the place of the accident or apply its own modern rule rejecting the doctrine.
On September 16, 1960, Georgia Babcock, a resident of Rochester, New York, along with her friends Mr. and Mrs. William Jackson, also Rochester residents, departed from Rochester in William Jackson's automobile for a weekend trip to Canada, with Babcock traveling as a guest passenger. Several hours later, while driving in the Province of Ontario, Jackson lost control of the vehicle, which left the highway and struck an adjacent stone wall, resulting in serious injuries to Babcock. After returning to New York, Babcock commenced an action against Jackson alleging negligence in the operation of the automobile. Following Jackson's death, his executrix was substituted as the defendant. At the time of the accident, Ontario law included a statute providing that the owner or driver of a motor vehicle is not liable for loss or damage resulting from bodily injury to a passenger being carried in the vehicle, except for vehicles operated in the business of carrying passengers for compensation. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Ontario law governed and barred recovery. The Special Term granted the motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal without opinion.
View caseNo. Modern tort law has rejected broad parental immunity. The mere existence of the relationship does not create a categorical bar to suit for ordinary negligence.
Supporting sources
Limited protection may remain for core parenting decisions such as reasonable discipline or supervision choices. The protection flows from the character of the conduct rather than from family status alone.
Supporting sources
No. When the conduct arises from business operations rather than private family decisions, ordinary negligence standards apply and the relationship supplies no shield.
Supporting sources
…27 N.J. 1; Mertz v. Mertz , 271 N.Y. 466; Haumschild v. Continental Cas. Co. , 7 Wis.2d 130, supra; see, also, Ehrenzweig, Parental Immunity in the Conflict of Laws, 23 U. Chi. L. Rev. 474; Ford, Interspousal Liability for Automobile Accidents in the Conflict of Laws, 15 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 397. But cf. Coster v. Coster , 289 N.Y.…