TRANSAMERICA INS CO v ROYLE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-187 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O F M N A A F OTN 1983 TPANSAMERICA INSURANCE C O . , a foreign corporation, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , VS. WILLIAM D. ROYLE, a s C o n s e r v a t o r o f Mary Kay H a i n e s , a P r o t e c t e d P e r s o n ; BYRON D. HAINES and JOYCE WILSON HAINES, D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: K e e f e r , Roybal, Hanson, S t a c e y & J a r u s s i , B i l l i n g s , Dlon t a n a Gene J a r u s s i a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: C h r i s t i a n , McCurdy & Wold, P o l s o n , Montana Douglas Wold a r g u e d and J e a n T u r n a g e a r g u e d , P o l s o n , Montana F o r Amicus C u r i a e : Tim D. H a l l a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: _ Decided: .*- d & 4 Clerk November 1 2 , 1982 J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1983 M r . J u s t i c e John Court. Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d T h i s case comes f r o m t h e t h e Opinion of the F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t by way o f c e r t i f i c a t i o n p u r s u a n t to Rule 1 o f t h e r u l e s of t h i s C o u r t . At i s s u e is a n i n s u r a n c e c o m p a n y ' s o b l i g a t i o n to d e f e n d or p r o v i d e coverage for parents are who being sued by their daughter. Judge R u s s e l l Smith has c e r t i f i e d the following t w o i s s u e s : "Is 1. the 'household , not certified insurance] exclusion' under in the a policy Motor [of Vehicle auto Safety Responsibility A c t , valid?" 2. " I s a p a r e n t immune from a c t i o n i n t o r t b r o u g h t a g a i n s t him by h i s c h i l d r e n under t h e age of emancipation?" On November 1 4 , 1 9 8 0 , Mary Kay H a i n e s was i n j u r e d i n a n a u t o accident. S h e was a p a s s e n g e r i n a car i n which h e r m o t h e r w a s driving. As a The of her injuries, Mary The car was owned b y Mary K a y ' s quadriplegic. Byron H a i n e s result , insurance is Kay now a f a t h e r , Reverend and was i n s u r e d by T r a n s a m e r i c a I n s u r a n c e Company. policy contained a "household exclusion clause" w h i c h e x c l u d e s c o v e r a g e f o r " b o d i l y i n j u r y to a n y p e r s o n who is r e l a t e d b y b l o o d , m a r r i a g e , o r a d o p t i o n to [ t h e i n s u r e d ] , if that p e r s o n r e s i d e s i n [ t h e i n s u r e d ' s ] household a t t h e t i m e of l o s s . " Mr. Royle, as conservator for Mary Kay, filed an action a g a i n s t t h e H a i n e s i n S t a t e C o u r t i n L a k e C o u n t y to r e c o v e r damages. The H a i n e s demanded t h a t T r a n s a m e r i c a assume t h e i r d e f e n s e and p r o v i d e c o v e r a g e . Transamerica refused and f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l a i m i n g it had no o b l i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e insurance judgment contract. in state The court parents asking c l a u s e " be d e c l a r e d i n v a l i d . then that the sought a declaratory "household exclusion T h a t a c t i o n w a s removed t o F e d e r a l C o u r t and c o n s o l i d a t e d w i t h t h e T r a n s a m e r i c a a c t i o n . On May 6 , 1 9 8 2 , J u d g e R u s s e l l S m i t h c e r t i f i e d t h e two i s s u e s t o t h i s C o u r t . In plaintiff I s v i e w t h e f i r s t i s s u e b o i l s down t o w h e t h e r or n o t s e c t i o n 61-6-301(1) MCA, prohibits a family exclusion clause i n an automobile i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y . I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , t h e above cited section reads: . . . shall " E v e r y owner o f a m o t o r v e h i c l e -- - l - r - u i n g fr b c o n t i n u o u s l y p r o v i d e i n s u r a n c e -a g a i n s t --o-s s -e s-- l t -- ---o m l i a- i . . .. . - l -t y - - -. -- b- l - f o r b o d i l y i n j u r y or d e a t h or damage to p r o i imposed y a w . perty . s u f-- e r e d f Plaintiff family by argues simply t h a t the exclusion coverage for . . ." any - person clause "liability because imposed Montana r e c o g n i z e s p a r e n t a l by (Emphasis added. ) s t a t u t e does not void the statute law." In only the requires o t h e r words, if immunity from s u i t by t h e i r c h i l d r e n r t h e n M. and Mrs. H a i n e s c a n n o t be l i a b l e ; and s i n c e t h e r e would not be would "liability be v a l i d . imposed b y law" Although n o t from t h e i r view t h a t Court the is the parent-child the stated family exclusion clause it f o l l o w s by p l a i n t i f f , f i r s t q u e s t i o n to be d e c i d e d b y t h i s immunity question. We agree. Our d e c i s i o n o n i s s u e number t w o w i l l c o n t r o l o u r d e c i s i o n on i s s u e number o n e . i f we r e c o g n i z e p a r e n t a l I n o t h e r words, then the exclusion clause is v a l i d ; and v i c e v e r s a , immunity, i f parent- c h i l d immunity d o e s n o t e x i s t , t h e n t h e e x c l u s i o n c l a u s e m u s t be i n v a l i d by v i r t u e o f s e c t i o n 61-6-301(1), MCA. As is d i s c u s s e d l a t e r , w e f i n d t h a t a c h i l d may m a i n t a i n a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s parent f o r negligence arising vehicle. o u t of t h e o p e r a t i o n of T h u s , t h e e x c l u s i o n c l a u s e is i n v a l i d . a motor Before reaching t h e immunity q u e s t i o n , w e m u s t d i s p e l con£ u s i o n c o n c e r n i n g i s s u e number o n e . P r i o r t o 1 9 7 9 , Montana l a w r e q u i r e d o n l y c e r t a i n p e r s o n s to d e m o n s t r a t e and m a i n t a i n f i n a n c i a l s e c u r i t y . still on the books, Responsibility Act. had their driver's f e i t u r e of demonstrate b a i l of MCA. called Motor the ( S e c t i o n s 61-6-101, Vehicle e t seq. ) Safety O n l y t h o s e who l i c e n s e revoked due to a c o n v i c t i o n o r f o r c e r t a i n motor v e h i c l e financial insurance policy. is T h a t l a w , which is security, See s e c t i o n s laws were r e q u i r e d obtain i.e., 61-6-131(1) a to liability and 6 1 - 6 - 1 3 2 ( 1 ) ( a ) , T h u s , o n l y " b a d d r i v e r s " were r e q u i r e d to c a r r y l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e , and l i a b i l i t y o f t h e i n s u r e r u n d e r t h o s e p o l i c i e s was "absolute ." S e c t i o n 6 1 - 6 - 1 0 3 ( 6 ) ( a ), MCA. I n o t h e r words, such a p o l i c y could n o t c o n t a i n e x c l u s i o n s . then certify 61-6-133, that had it The i n s u r a n c e company would insured the "bad Only then could the bad in MCA. the Safety driver," section driver regain driving privileges. This Court, interpreting Responsibility Act h e l d t h a t o r d i n a r y p o l i c i e s , or t h o s e p o l i c i e s not r e q u i r e d under the Act, B o l d t v. S t a t e Farm M u t u a l 1 5 1 Mont. 3 3 7 , 4 4 3 P.2d 33; N o r t h e r n A s s u r a n c e Company v . (1968) Truck could contain exclusions. I n s u r a n c e Exchange ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 132, 439 P.2d 760. S p e c i f i c a l l y , o r d i n a r y p o l i c i e s could c o n t a i n a family e x c l u s i o n clause, Mid C e n t u r y I n s u r a n c e Co. v . A m e r i c a n C a s u a l t y Company ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 2 Mont. 3 2 8 , 449 P.2d 679. I n summary, p o l i c i e s to be c e r t i f i e d u n d e r t h e A c t c o u l d n o t contain exclusions ; whereas, the ( p o l i c i e s of Act However, 1979 treasurer insurance good drivers) the could contain legislature exclusions. mandated liability E v e r y v e h i c l e owner is now r e q u i r e d t o c e r t i f y to t h e insurance. county in p o l i c i e s n o t t o be c e r t i f i e d u n d e r that policy. he possesses appears It from an the automobile briefs that liability "in the i n s t a n t case, t h e s u b j e c t i n s u r a n c e P o l i c y was I c e r t i f i e d ' b y t h e owner of the vehicle [ t h e Haines] with the law requiring any person. ' " requiring under the Thus, mandatory Motor as proof insurance f o r bodily p o l i c y was the liability Vehicle having but complied i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by certified insurance Safety of was Responsibility under not Act. the law certified Had the p o l i c y been c e r t i f i e d under t h e S a f e t y R e s p o n s i b i l i t y A c t , B o l d t a n d N o r t h e r n A s s u r a n c e would c o n t r o l and t h e r e s u l t would be t h a t t h e e x c l u s i o n is i n v a l i d . When J u d g e S m i t h f r a m e d the issue, he w a s o n l y s a y i n g t h a t t h i s case d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a c e r t i f i c a t i o n u n d e r P a r t 1 of T i t l e 61, Chapter 6, MCA; the Safety Responsibility Act. Instead, t h i s case a r i s e s u n d e r P a r t 3 o f t h e same t i t l e and c h a p t e r , t h e law r e q u i r i n g m a n d a t o r y l i a b i l i t y p r o t e c t i o n . independent. The t w o p a r t s are , S e c t i o n 61-6-136 two parts. be held p r e c l u d e s any r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e MCA, " [ t l h i s p a r t s h a l l not That s e c t i o n states i n p a r t : t o a p p l y t o or a f f e c t p o l i c i e s of automobile insurance a g a i n s t l i a b i l i t y w h i c h may now o r h e r e a f t e r be r e q u i r e d b y a n y o t h e r l a w of t h i s state . . ." O t h e r a u t h o r i t y e x i s t s to show t h a t p a r t 1 and p a r t 3 are i n d e p e n d e n t . (1981) 1 S e e S t a t e Farm v . Q u e e n , 38 S t . R e p . 6 0 8 . F.Supp. Automobile I n s u r a n c e , S e c ti o n 20 ( 1 9 8 0 ) S e e 7 Arn.Jur.2d . I n c o n c l u s i o n , p a r t 1 o f t i t l e 6 1 c h a p t e r 6 and t h e cases of B o-l d t and Northern -rance Assu issue. More are n o t specifically, the controlling the first restrict ions statutory i n s u r a n c e p o l i c i e s c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 61-6-103 p o l i c i e s purchased to on do not apply t o t o f u l f i l l t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of Part 3, Man- datory Liability Protection. The requires and e f f e c t of the langauge of t h e M a n d a t o r y I n s u r a n c e Law l i a b i l i t y p o l i c y to p r o t e c t property legislature the damage has to "any expressly against bodily injury person." outlawed the In so p r o v i d i n g , "household the exclusion ." I n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d ; w h e t h e r or n o t a c h i l d c a n s u e h e r p a r e n t , w e h a v e r e v i e w e d t h e v a s t amount of w r i t i n g s d o n e on t h e s u b j e c t by c o u r t s , w r i t e r s and o t h e r s and f i n d t h a t f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n would s e r v e no u s e f u l p u r p o s e . The i s s u e is o n e o f f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n and w e d o not believe authorities our case which should support be determined o n e r u l e or the by the other, number anymore of than t h a t a j u r y s h o u l d r e s o l v e i s s u e s a c c o r d i n g to t h e number o f w i t n e s s e s who a p p e a r on o n e s i d e or t h e o t h e r . A comprehensive the doctrine a n n o t a t i o n g i v i n g t h e h i s t o r i c background of is a v a i l a b l e under t h e title " L i a b i l i t y of Parent f o r I n j u r y t o U n e m a n c i p a t e d C h i l d Caused b y P a r e n t ' s N e g l i g e n c e - Modern Cases" i n 6 A.L.R.4th 1066. The cases c i t e d a g r e e t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e is a c r e a t u r e of American j u r i s p r u d e n c e . Law o f T o r t s , S e c t . 1 2 2 ( 4 t h Ed. Prosser , 1 9 7 1 ) s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e is no r e a s o n to t h i n k t h a t t h e E n g l i s h law would n o t p e r m i t a c t i o n s f o r p e r s o n a l t o r t s a s w e l l as d i s p u t e s i n v o l v i n g p r o p e r t y r i g h t s bet w e e n c h i l d and p a r e n t . Canada and Scotland notes He permitting that there are decisions such act i o n s . Reading in both and H a r p e r and James, Law o f T o r t s , V o l . 1, S e c t . 8 . 1 1 Prosser, ( 1 9 5 6 ) , t h e c o n c u r r e n c e is t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e h a s no f o u n d a t i o n i n E n g l i s h law. The d o c t r i n e of parental d o c t r i n e a r i s i n g o u t of Hewellette v . immunity a case is a from t h e judicially S t a t e of created Mississippi, The case G e o r g e ( 1 8 9 1 ) , 6 8 Miss. 7 0 3 , 9 S o . 8 8 5 . c i t e s no case a u t h o r i t y f o r i t s h o l d i n g y e t w i t h i n a few s h o r t years, other jurisdictions adopted without it questioning Long a f t e r t h e d o c t r i n e became l e g i t i m i z e d ancestry. its thinking , c o u r t s and s c h o l a r s b e g a n t o c r i t i c i z e t h e d o c t r i n e d u e t o t h e i nj u s t i c e s created S e c t . 1 2 2 a t 864; 650; i n many 1 Harper factual situations. James, Law o f T o r t s , & Nocktonick v. Nocktonick ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 135. A s noted See, Kan. 227 i n t h e N o c k t o n i c k case, s u p r a , Prosser, S e c t . 8.11 a t 758 , 6 1 1 P.2d t h e s e criticisms r e s u l t e d i n a number o f j u d i c i a l d e c i s i o n s which h a v e e r o d e d t h e d o c t r i n e by c r e a t i n g numerous e x c e p t i o n s . few j u r i s d i c t i o n s , if any, As a result, recognizing parental t h e r e are immunity i n i t s o r i g i n a l form. Some past eight exceptions few y e a r s . eighth injuries Nocktonick, exception, caused to by allowing the the doctrine 6 1 1 P.2d a child negligent have a t 138. to sue o p e r a t i o n of evolved to the parents for It his these is a motor v e h i c l e t h a t we d i r e c t our consideration. The p r i n c i p l e r e a s o n relied on by t h e c o u r t s f o r a l l o w i n g a n a c t i o n by a c h i l d a g a i n s t t h e i r p a r e n t i n a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t case is t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f a u t o m o b i l e l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e . "While courts cannot concede the existence of automobile insurance c r e a t e a l i a b i l i t y w h e r e none b e f o r e e x i s t e d , t h e p r e v a l e n c e of l i a b i l i t y i n s u r a n c e h a s b e e n h e l d t o be a p r o p e r f a c t o r to cons i d e r i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y o f t h e p a r e n t a l immunity. " N o c k t o n i c k , 6 1 1 P.2d a t 138-39. The c o u r t s which h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h i s e x c e p t i o n have reasoned t h a t t h e p o l i c y r e a s o n s which o r i g i - . The discord and n a l l y s u p p o r t e d p a r e n t a l immunity no l o n g e r are a p p l i c a b l e existence of liability depletion of family insurance assets in 350, 339 N.E.2d 907; family automobile c o n t r a r y to t h e o r i g i n a l p o l i c i e s . 369 Mass. prevents negligence Sorenson v. and G o l l e r v . cases; Sorenson (1975), White ( 1 9 6 3 ) r 20 P r o b a b l y t h e m o s t p e r s u a s i v e a r g u m e n t a g a i n s t a b r o g a t i o n of parent-child immunity is t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f f r a u d and c o l l u s i o n . U n s c r u p u l o u s f a m i l i e s may a t t e m p t t o r e c o v e r u n j u s t i f i e d awards While w e r e c o g n i z e t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y , from i n s u r a n c e companies. w e d o n o t b e l i e v e it j u s t i f i e s d e n i a l o f m e r i t o r i o u s claims. We a g r e e w i t h t h e Supreme C o u r t of K a n s a s which s a i d : " [ t l h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o l l u s i o n e x i s t s to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t i n a n y case. Every day we d e p e n d o n j u r i e s and t r i a l j u d g e s to s i f t e v i d e n c e i n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e f a c t s and a r r i v e a t proper verdicts. Experience has shown t h a t t h e c o u r t s a r e q u i t e a d e q u a t e f o r t h i s task. I n l i t i g a t i o n b e t w e e n p a r e n t and c h i l d , j u d g e s and j u r i e s would n a t u r a l l y be m i n d f u l o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p and would be e v e n 611 more on t h e a l e r t f o r i m p r o p e r c o n d u c t P.2d a t 1 4 2 . ." W e h a v e b e e n a s k e d t o d e c i d e which r u l e b e s t s e r v e s t h e n e e d s of justice in this state. I n s e t t i n g Montana's rule, we m u s t r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e more r e c e n t d e c i s i o n s r e j e c t i n g p a r e n t a l immun i t y are i n d i c a t i v e o f a " g r o w i n g j u d i c i a l d i s t a s t e f o r a r u l e of l a w which i n o n e sweep d i s q u a l i f i e d minors." Gibson v. 650. a n e n t i r e c l a s s of Gibson ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 3 Cal.3d 914, injured 4 7 9 p.2d 648, W e b e l i e v e t h a t t h e a u t h o r i t i e s which f a v o r a b r o g a t i o n of t h e p a r e n t a l immunity d o c t r i n e s t a t e t h e proper a p p r o a c h i n l i g h t of modern policy. conditions and conception of what is good public W see no r e a s o n why c h i l d r e n s h o u l d n o t e n j o y t h e same e r i g h t or p r o t e c t i o n and them as o t h e r s e n j o y . the same l e g a l r e d r e s s f o r w r o n g s d o n e Due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h i s is a case of f i r s t i m p r e s s i o n i n Montana and t h e f a c t t h a t w e are n o t encumb e r e d b y p r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s , o u r t a s k is made e a s i e r t h a n o t h e r s t a t e s who h a v e had to q u a l i f y t h e r u l e i n s e a r c h of justice. The p r i n c i p l e t h a t a n u n e m a n c i p a t e d m i n o r may n o t s u e a p a r e n t i n t o r t i s a "man-made r u l e examining to it make ," and such i t is t h e d u t y o f t h e j u d i c i a r y i n as rule justice requires when the l e g i s l a t u r e h a s n o t chosen t o act. O u r h o l d i n g is l i m i t e d t o t h e i s s u e s c e r t i f i e d t o u s by t h e against him immune from a c t i o n i n t o r t b r o u g h t " i s a parent Federal Court; by his children under the age of emancipation?" W h i l e t h e i s s u e c e r t i f i e d t o u s by t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t a s k s " i s a ... parent in - rt to - . . .;" o u r h o l d i n g is l i m i t e d to a c t i o n s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t a p a r e n t by a c h i l d u n d e r t h e a g e of e m a n c i p a t i o n i n j u r e d i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of a motor v e h i c l e . To allow s u c h a n a c t i o n d o e s n o t u n d e r m i n e p a r e n t a l a u t h o r i t y and d i s c i p l i n e , n o r d o e s it t h r e a t e n t o s u b s t i t u t e j u d i c i a l discretion for parental d i s c r e t i o n i n t h e care and r e a r i n g o f m i n o r c h i l d r e n . W e must r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e r e may be p a r e n t a l e x e r c i s e s of d i s c r e t i o n and a u t h o r i t y w h i c h would d e s e r v e s p e c i a l p r o t e c t i o n law. Here, i n a c o u r t of w e m e r e l y remove a n y b a r r i e r t o t h e e n f o r c e m e n t of l i a b i l i t y i n a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t case b r o u g h t by a n unemanc i p a t e d minor a g a i n s t a p a r e n t . When c o n f r o n t e d w i t h o t h e r cases i n v o l v i n g claimed p a r e n t a l immunity, we w i l l a t t h a t t i m e d e t e r mine to what extent the doctrine or privilege should be recognized. I n a d d i t i o n , w e h o l d t h a t t h e h o u s e h o l d e x c l u s i o n c l a u s e is i n v a l i d due to its f a i l u r e to "honor t h e r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s " of t h e p u r c h a s e r of t h e p o l i c y . Variance ( 1970). with Policy Provisions, See Keeton, Insurance R i g h t s a t 83 H a r v a r d Law Rev. 961, 967 P r o f e s s o r K e e t o n s e t s f o r t h t h i s p r i n c i p l e as f o l l o w s : "The o b j e c t i v e l y r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n s o f applicants and intended beneficiaries r e g a r d i n g t h e terms o f i n s u r a n c e c o n t r a c t s w i l l be h o n o r e d e v e n t h o u g h p a i n s t a k i n g s t u d y o f t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s would h a v e n e g a t e d those expectations ." This policy is an adhesion contract that justifies this C o u r t s c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e consumer a p p r o a c h . W e h o l d t h a t a p a r e n t is n o t immune from s u i t b r o u g h t by h i s c h i l d under t h e age of emancipation i n cases involving parental n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of a m o t o r v e h i c l e . must hold ceable t h a t a family exclusion clause because s e c t i o n 61-6-301 ( 1), MCA, C o n s e q u e n t l y , we is v o i d and unenfor- r e q u i r e s m o t o r i s t s to c a r r y i n s u r a n c e a g a i n s t l o s s r e s u l t i n g from l i a b i l i t y imposed b y l a w f o r i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by a n y p e r s o n . We c o n c u r : i 3 4wdl1& Ch*f Justtce i D i s t p i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of Ydr. J u s t i c e F r a ~ k . B :Piorrison, J r . I Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g . I j o i n t h e m a j o r i t y on t h e i s s u e of i n the insurance policy. t h e q u e s t i o n of Court does recognized, parental not it recognize I would t h e "household e x c l u s i o n " go a n o t h e r s t e p , h o w e v e r , on immunity and s i m p l y d e c l a r e t h a t t h i s the is a q u e s t i o n doctrine for the and if is it legislature, not to be for the courts. The m a j o r i t y c o n f i n e s t h e a b o l i t i o n of p a r e n t a l "actions brought a g a i n s t a p a r e n t by a c h i l d u n d e r immunity to t h e a g e of e m a n c i p a t i o n i n j u r e d i n t h e o p e r a t i o n of a m o t o r v e h i c l e ." But, a s l o n g a s t h i s C o u r t h a s now r e f u s e d t o r e c o g n i z e t h i s d o c t r i n e , w e s h o u l d n o t d e c i d e t h a t p o s s i b l y w e may r e c o g n i z e it i n a n o t h e r context than t h a t which h a s b e e n p r e s e n t e d here. If parental immunity is t o be r e c o g n i z e d c o m p l e t e l y , or i n any l i m i t e d f o r m , i t seems t o m e t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e is t h e p r o p e r p l a c e to d e t e r - mine the circumstances recognized. legislature; i n which it s h o u l d o r s h o u l d n o t be so T h e s e are p u b l i c p o l i c y q u e s t i o n s b e t t e r l e f t to t h e we are ill-equipped to undertake that task.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.