Source: http://www.officialcoldcaseinvestigations.com/showthread.php?10282-Linda-Small-Rockfeld-Heiress-Missing-1972/page2&p=47916#post47916
Timestamp: 2016-12-07 08:38:54
Document Index: 263896942

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 131', '§ 133', '§ 122', '§ 122', '§ 122', '§ 122', '§ 22']

Linda Small Rockfeld - Heiress Missing 1972 - Page 2
Thread: Linda Small Rockfeld - Heiress Missing 1972
Dr. Robert D. Rockfeld C’63, Atlanta, a retired physician; 2005.
Reply With Quote 10-05-2009, 01:34 PM
of the new and belligerently democratic republic in America'. Prosser, Law of Torts § 131 at 971 (4 th ed. 1971). In our own State there has been persistent judicial whittling, first at the immunities of lower governmental levels and finally at the immunity of the State itself. See Cloyes v. Delaware Tp., 23 N.J. 324, 327-330 (1957); Jackson v. Hankinson and Bd. of Ed. of New Shrewsbury, 51 N.J. 230, 234-235 (1968); P, T & L Const. Co. v. Comm'r Dept. of Trans., 55 N.J. 341 (1970); and Willis v. Dept. of Cons. & Ec. Dev., 55 N.J. 534 (1970), where this Court, after pointing out (at 538) that "[t]here has been a steady movement away from immunity', held that the State was not immune from a damage action grounded on the State's tortious conduct in negligently failing to erect suitable barriers in High Point Park around a bear which mauled a child's arm requiring its amputation. See Comment, "Judicial Abrogation of Sovereign Immunity in New Jersey: A Prelude to Legislative Reform?', 2 Seton Hall L. Rev. 149 (1970); L. 1972, c. 45; N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 et seq.; Perillo v. Dreher, 126 N.J. Super. 264, 267 (App. Div. 1974).
In Collopy v. Newark Eye and Ear Infirmary, 27 N.J. 29 (1958), this Court abrogated the common law immunity in favor of charitable organizations. We noted that judicial exceptions have been declared from time to time, that the immunity runs counter "to widespread principles which fairly impose liability on those who wrongfully and negligently injure others', and that it "operates harshly and disregards modern concepts of justice and fair dealing'. 27 N.J. at 47-48. Dean Prosser has collected the cases elsewhere which have similarly abrogated the charitable immunity doctrine and has confidently predicted that "the next two decades will see its virtual disappearance from American law.' Prosser, supra, § 133 at 996; cf. N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-7 et seq.; Winters v. Jersey City, 63 N.J. 7 (1973); Tramutola v. Bortone, 63 N.J. 9, 18 (1973). [66 NJ Page 238]
The chief reason relied upon by all these courts, however, is that personal tort actions between husband and wife would disrupt and destroy the peace and harmony of the home, which is against the policy of the law. This is on the bald theory that after a husband has beaten his wife, there is a state of peace and harmony left to be disturbed; and that if she is sufficiently injured or angry to sue him for it, she will be soothed and deterred from reprisals by denying her the legal remedy -- and this even though she has left him or divorced him for that very ground, and although the same courts refuse to find any disruption of domestic tranquility if she sues him for a tort to her property, or brings a criminal prosecution against him. If this reasoning appeals to the reader, let him by all means adopt it. Prosser, supra, § 122 at 863.
The English common law did not recognize any intrafamilial immunity precluding action by or on behalf of a minor against his wrongdoing parent. See Prosser, supra, § 122 at 865; McCurdy, supra, 43 Harv. L. Rev. at 1059; Hastings v. Hastings, 33 N.J. 247, 255 (1960) (dissenting opinion). However, in the United States an early Mississippi case did refuse to allow an unemancipated daughter to sue her mother for damages resulting from the alleged malicious imprisoning of the daughter in an insane asylum. Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885, 13 L.R.A. 682 (1891). The court cited no authority for its holding but took the position that in the interests of the peace and tranquillity of the family, a minor child should be prohibited from suing his parent for personal injuries. Hewlett was followed by the Court of Errors and Appeals in Reingold v. Reingold, 115 N.J.L. 532 (E. & A. 1935), which in turn was followed by this Court in Hastings v. Hastings, supra, 33 N.J. 247. However, Hastings was a case which, like Heyman v. Gordon, supra, 40 N.J. 52, and the other New Jersey cases sustaining the parental immunity, involved only ordinary motor vehicle negligence. In Hastings there were three dissenting members who pointed out that the parental immunity had been [66 NJ Page 242]
universally condemned in the professorial and student writings on the subject (33 N.J. at 254), had justly been departed from in varying situations (33 N.J. at 260), and had not precluded the contract and property actions which had frequently been instituted between unemancipated minors and their parents with whom they lived and which oftentimes had been grounded on serious charges of parental misconduct. 33 N.J. at 259; In re Flasch, 51 N.J. Super. 1, 29 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 28 N.J. 35 (1958); Keeney v. Henning, 58 N.J. Eq. 74 (Ch. 1899); Alling v. Alling, 52 N.J. Eq. 92 (Ch. 1893); Prosser, supra, § 122 at 865; McCurdy, supra, 43 Harv. L. Rev. at 1057.
The majority in Hastings stressed that at that time no case had been found allowing an action between parent and child "where only simple negligence in a purely family relationship was involved'. 33 N.J. at 249. However, since that was written, there have been many decisions which have sweepingly abrogated the parental immunity and have allowed intrafamilial actions generally, including suits such as the one dealt with in Hastings, namely, suit grounded on the negligent operation of an automobile by the parent resulting in injury to his unemancipated minor child. 33 N.J. at 248. See Prosser, supra, § 122 at 867-868; Goller v. White, 20 Wis. 2 d 402, 122 N.W. 2 d 193 (1963); Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal. 3 d 914, 92 Cal. Rptr. 288, 479 P. 2 d 648 (1971); see also Briere v. Briere, 107 N.H. 432, 224 A. 2 d 588 (1966); Hebel v. Hebel, 435 P. 2 d 8 (Alaska 1967); Nuelle v. Wells, 154 N.W. 2 d 364 (N.D. 1967); Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431, 161 N.W. 2 d 631 (1968); Schenk v. Schenk, 100 Ill. App. 2 d 199, 241 N.E. 2 d 12 (1968); Gelbman v. Gelbman, 23 N.Y. 2d 434, 297 N.Y.S. 2d 529, 245 N.E. 2 d 192 (1969); Petersen v. Honolulu, 51 Haw. 484, 462 P. 2 d 1007 (1970); Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. 86, 471 P. 2 d 282 (1970); Rigdon v. Rigdon, 465 S.W. 2 d 921 (Ky. Ct. App. 1971); Falco v. Pados, 444 Pa. 372, 282 A.2d 351 (1971); Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1, 199 N.W. 2 d 169 (1972); Rupert v. Stienne, Nev. , 528 P. 2 d 1013 (1974). [66 NJ Page 243]
jurisdiction in an appropriate case, to look into and supervise the taking of any action affecting the welfare of an infant child, its person, property or custody. 42 Am. Jur. 2d Infants, § 22, p. 27; Fantony v. Fantony, 21 N.J. 525, 535 (1956); Henderson v. Henderson, 10 N.J. 390, 395 (1952); Moreland v. Hollo, 15 N.J. Super. 135, 138 (App. Div. 1951). I have no doubt that a court should exercise such jurisdiction, in a proper case, on its own motion, since the parties to the litigation may not discern the welfare problem that catches the eye of the court. Moreover, it is well said that "* * * the court's action [ parens patriae ] is not limited by any narrow bounds but [it] is empowered to stretch forth its arm in whatever direction its aid and protection may be needed'. 42 Am. Jur. 2d, ubi cit. supra.
Posts 20,375	Re: Linda Small Rockfeld - Heiress Missing 1972
| Josiah Victor Hoffman, 52, Missing on the Gulf of Mexico
Last Post: 11-27-2008, 08:30 PM