Case Name: RYAN SCHWARTZ, LINDA SCHWARTZ, RANDY SCHWARTZ, ROGER SCHWARTZ, JR., INFANTS BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROGER SCHWARTZ, CATHERINE SCHWARTZ AND ROGER SCHWARTZ, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. U. S. RUBBER CORP., A CORPORATION, U. S. ROYAL TIRE, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., A CORPORATION, A. C. CHEVROLET DISTRIBUTORS, CATHERINE SCHWARTZ AND ROGER SCHWARTZ (AS TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INFANTS' INJURIES ONLY), DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS
Court: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1972-01-25
Citations: 118 N.J. Super. 128
Docket Number: 
Parties: RYAN SCHWARTZ, LINDA SCHWARTZ, RANDY SCHWARTZ, ROGER SCHWARTZ, JR., INFANTS BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROGER SCHWARTZ, CATHERINE SCHWARTZ AND ROGER SCHWARTZ, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. U. S. RUBBER CORP., A CORPORATION, U. S. ROYAL TIRE, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., A CORPORATION, A. C. CHEVROLET DISTRIBUTORS, CATHERINE SCHWARTZ AND ROGER SCHWARTZ (AS TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INFANTS’ INJURIES ONLY), DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Superior Court Reports
Volume: 118
Pages: 128–129

Head Matter:
RYAN SCHWARTZ, LINDA SCHWARTZ, RANDY SCHWARTZ, ROGER SCHWARTZ, JR., INFANTS BY THEIR GUARDIAN AD LITEM, ROGER SCHWARTZ, CATHERINE SCHWARTZ AND ROGER SCHWARTZ, INDIVIDUALLY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. U. S. RUBBER CORP., A CORPORATION, U. S. ROYAL TIRE, GENERAL MOTORS CORP., A CORPORATION, A. C. CHEVROLET DISTRIBUTORS, CATHERINE SCHWARTZ AND ROGER SCHWARTZ (AS TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF INFANTS’ INJURIES ONLY), DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
Superior Court of New Jersey-Appellate Division
Argued January 10, 1972
Decided January 25, 1972.
Before Judges Sullivan, Leonard and Carton.
Mr. Bernard Ghazen argued the cause for appellants.
Mr. Roger G. Ward argued the cause for respondent ITniroyal, Inc. (Messrs. Pitney, Hardin & Kipp, attorneys; Mr. Richard L. Zuclcer, on the brief).
Mr. Fdward G. Hillis argued the cause for respondents Catherine Schwartz and Roger Schwartz (Mr. Henry O. Ha-hick, attorney).

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This appeal involves the issue whether any retroactive effect should be given to the decision in France v. A. P. A. Transport Corp., 56 N. J. 500 (1970), which allows suits between unemancipated children and their parents for injuries suffered as a result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. We conclude that Darrow v. Hanover Township, 58 N. J. 410 (1971), controls as is indicated by the June 8, 1971 order of the Supreme Court denying certification of the then pending appeal in this case.
Affirmed.