Title: Nocktonick v. Nocktonick
Citation: 227 Kan. 758, 611 P.2d 135
Docket Number: 50,495
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: May 10, 1980

227 Kan. 758 (1980)
611 P.2d 135
ROSANNA NOCKTONICK, a minor, by her guardian Wayne Matson, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
REGINA NOCKTONICK, and FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 50,495

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 10, 1980.
Wilburn Dillon, Jr., of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
George F. Farrell, Jr., of Benfer and Farrell, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
Edward M. Boyle, of Olathe, was on the brief amicus curiae for the Kansas Trial Lawyers Association.
Donald Patterson and J. Steven Pigg, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler, and Smith, of Topeka, were on the brief amicus curiae for the Kansas Association of Defense Counsel.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
PRAGER, J.:
This is an action brought by an unemancipated minor child against her mother to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by the child as the result of an automobile collision. The plaintiff-appellant, Rosanna Nocktonick, was a minor three years of age on October 15, 1976, the date of the collision. She was a passenger in an automobile operated by her natural mother, the defendant-appellee, Regina Nocktonick. The Nocktonick vehicle collided with an automobile driven by Eleanor Milner at the intersection of two county roads in Jackson County, Kansas. The plaintiff's injuries included multiple fractures of her leg, requiring extensive hospitalization.
On August 17, 1977, Regina Nocktonick was appointed conservator of Rosanna for assertion of Rosanna's claim against Eleanor Milner. This claim was satisfied by a settlement which was approved by the court and paid by Milner's insurance company. The settlement was based upon a covenant not to sue, and reserved Rosanna's right to proceed against her mother, Regina. Regina's insurance carrier, Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, asserted a lien for the PIP benefits paid, and that sum *759 was refunded from the settlement proceeds pursuant to court order. On October 3, 1977, Wayne Matson, Rosanna's maternal grandfather, was appointed her conservator to pursue her claim against her mother. Rosanna's petition was filed October 5, 1977, against both her mother, Regina, and Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company. In her petition, Rosanna alleged her personal injuries were the result of her mother's negligence in the operation of her motor vehicle. She claimed damages in the amount of $50,000, the limit of her mother's liability insurance coverage. Farmers Alliance was later dismissed as a named party defendant. The defendant, Regina Nocktonick, then moved for summary judgment on the basis that the doctrine of parental immunity barred an action by an unemancipated minor against her parent to recover damages for negligent operation of a motor vehicle. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that the doctrine of parental immunity should be applied in Kansas to bar such a claim. Plaintiff brought a timely appeal to this court.
This appeal requires us to consider whether an unemancipated minor may recover damages in an action against a parent for injuries allegedly caused by the negligence of the parent in the operation of an insured motor vehicle. This issue has never before been presented to an appellate court in Kansas. In Miles v. West, 224 Kan. 284, 580 P.2d 876 (1978), the doctrine of "intrafamily immunity" was referred to in the opinion at page 286 but the issue was not decided.
This court recognized the existence of interspousal tort immunity and applied it in Sink v. Sink, 172 Kan. 217, 239 P.2d 933 (1952), where it was held that in this state neither spouse may maintain an action in tort for damages against the other. Here, the court is free either to adopt the doctrine of parental immunity or to reject it, without overruling any prior Kansas case law, rejecting any rule of the common law, or invalidating any Kansas statute. Stated simply, our task is to decide which rule best serves the needs of justice in Kansas in the closing years of the twentieth century.
It would be helpful at the outset to discuss generally the history of parental immunity, the justifications usually advanced for its adoption or rejection, and the exceptions to the doctrine adopted in various cases. There is a comprehensive annotation on the subject of "Liability of Parent for Injury to Unemancipated Child *760 Caused by Parent's Negligence" in 41 A.L.R.3d 904. There the views presently followed in the various states are discussed in depth and the cases supporting each position are cited. All of the cases agree that parental immunity in tort is a creature of relatively recent American jurisprudence. The early English law is discussed at length in McCurdy, Torts Between Persons in Domestic Relation, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 1030, 1031-1050 (1930). It is clear that both the English and American cases have long permitted actions between parent and minor child in disputes involving property rights. Professor Prosser has suggested that there is no good reason to think that the English law would not permit actions for personal torts as well, subject always to the parent's privilege to enforce reasonable discipline against the child. Prosser, Law of Torts § 122 (4th ed. 1971). Prosser points out that there are decisions in Canada and Scotland holding that such an action will lie. Other legal scholars have concluded that there is nothing in the English law which precludes an action in tort by a minor who has been wronged by his parent. Hebel v. Hebel, 435 P.2d 8 (Alaska 1967); 1 Harper &amp; James, Law of Torts § 8.11 (1956). Thus, the general consensus seems to be that the doctrine of parental immunity has no foundation in the English law, but originated in the United States.
The doctrine of parental immunity was judicially created in a Mississippi case, Hewlett v. Ragsdale, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885 (1891). In Hewlett, an unemancipated minor brought an action against her mother for the child's illegal imprisonment in an insane asylum motivated by the mother's desire to obtain the child's property. The Mississippi Supreme Court refused to entertain the daughter's claim, giving the following explanation:
The Mississippi court cited no authority in support of its holding.
The Hewlett decision was followed by McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388, 77 S.W. 664 (1903), in which a minor was *761 precluded from asserting a claim for damages resulting from cruel and unusual treatment at the hands of her father and stepmother. The court concluded that sound public policy supported the decision. Two years later in 1905, in Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242, 79 Pac. 788 (1905), the Supreme Court of Washington reversed a decision in favor of an unemancipated female child who had been raped by her father. The court held that such an action between the father and daughter did not lie because of the interest that society had in preserving harmony in domestic relations. Roller was an aggravated case, and plaintiff's counsel suggested to the court that the child having been raped by her father, it would seem that the harmonious relationship had already been disrupted. The court rejected this argument stating that "if it be once established that a child has a right to sue a parent for a tort, there is no practical line of demarkation which can be drawn." p. 244. Hence the child was denied a remedy. Following these cases, most of the jurisdictions in the United States adopted the doctrine of parental immunity, holding that an unemancipated minor child may not maintain an action in tort against a parent to recover damages for personal injuries.
The doctrine of parental immunity has been justified on the basis of public policy. There are five policy reasons primarily relied on to support it:
(1) Disturbance of domestic harmony and tranquility;
Domestic tranquility and interference with parental discipline, care, and control are the policy reasons most frequently offered by courts which have approved the rule. Skinner v. Whitley, 281 N.C. 476, 189 S.E.2d 230 (1972); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713, 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968). In support of parental immunity, many courts have relied heavily upon the interspousal immunity between husband and wife, pointing out that the same public policy is applicable to parent-child relationships as to husband-wife relationships.
*762 After the parental immunity doctrine had become well accepted, many legal scholars and judges began to criticize the doctrine on the basis that its practical effect was to produce manifest injustice in many factual situations. See for example, Prosser, Law of Torts § 122 at 864; 1 Harper &amp; James, Law of Torts § 8.11 at 650. Some of the writers point out the fact that litigation between parent and child over property rights is quite common, yet family harmony has seemed to survive. These writers argue that the law cannot reasonably make a distinction between the enforcement of property rights and the enforcement of personal rights. Furthermore, the "family harmony" rationale has been rejected on the basis that it is improbable that a suit would be filed against a parent by a child where there is not already discord in the family. Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. 350, 339 N.E.2d 907 (1975). Others have questioned why a child not related to the tortfeasor should be permitted to recover in situations where a child of the tortfeasor is precluded from recovery, and, further, why an emancipated sibling, age 18, should have a cause of action against a parent for personal injury where an unemancipated child, age 17, does not.
These criticisms resulted in a series of judicial decisions which have eroded the doctrine by the creation of numerous exceptions to it. Today, there are very few jurisdictions, if any, which recognize parental immunity in its absolute form. The exceptions to the doctrine which have been recognized by various courts are the following:
(1) As noted above, parental immunity was never extended beyond personal torts. It has never been recognized in cases in tort affecting only property, such as trespass to land or deceit.
(2) It was held almost from the beginning that the immunity did not apply to adult children or to minor children who had been emancipated by the surrender of parental control over them.
(3) Some courts hold that, where death has terminated the parent-child relationship, there is no longer any basis to apply the parental immunity rule, thus making it appropriate for claims to be brought against the child's estate or the parent's estate for personal wrongs. Dean v. Smith, 106 N.H. 314, 211 A.2d 410 (1965); Johnson v. Myers, 2 Ill. App.3d 844, 277 N.E.2d 778 (1972).
(4) Another exception, recognized fairly early and supported by *763 a good many decisions, has been that there is no immunity for the intentional or reckless infliction of bodily harm. This exception has been adopted on the theory that a parent who intentionally inflicts bodily harm on his child steps outside of his capacity as a parent. One application of this exception has been in the case of a parent who injures his child by his drunken driving of an automobile. Kobylanski v. Board of Education, 22 Ill. App.3d 551, 317 N.E.2d 714 (1974); Hoffman v. Tracy, 67 Wash. 2d 31, 38, 406 P.2d 323 (1965).
(5) Another exception is that there is no immunity for bodily harm inflicted by conduct that is merely negligent, if the harm is inflicted in the course of a business activity carried on by the parent. The explanation usually given is that the parent has not injured his child while acting in his capacity as a parent but rather in his capacity of one conducting a business enterprise and that the enterprise should have no parental immunity. See Farley v. M M Cattle Company, 529 S.W.2d 751 (Tex. 1975); Cody v. J.A. Dodds &amp; Sons, 252 Iowa 1394, 110 N.W.2d 255 (1961).
(6) It has been held that the immunity of the parent or child is a personal one that does not protect a third party who is liable for the tort of either. Thus, when a parent within the scope of his employment by another negligently inflicts personal injury upon his own child, his employer is not protected by the parent's immunity and is subject to liability to the child as if the negligence had been that of the employer himself. Stapleton v. Stapleton, 85 Ga. App. 728, 70 S.E.2d 156 (1952); Mi-Lady Cleaners v. McDaniel, 235 Ala. 469, 179 So. 908 (1938).
(7) The immunity of the parent has not been extended to the case of one who stands in loco parentis  one who performs the functions of a parent without being one. When there is bodily harm inflicted by a stepfather, a grandparent, or a teacher looking after the child, there is no immunity. Thus, in a second marriage, the husband may be liable for negligent injury to the wife's children but is not liable for injuries suffered by his own although arising out of the same negligent act.
(8) In recent years, several jurisdictions have carved an exception to the parental immunity rule to allow the child to sue his parent for injuries caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. See for example, Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. 86, 471 P.2d 282 (1970); Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. 350. The main *764 justification relied on for allowing an action by a child against a parent in automobile accident cases is the prevalence of automobile liability insurance. While courts concede the existence of automobile insurance cannot create liability where none before existed, the prevalence of liability insurance has been held to be a proper factor to consider in determining the applicability of parental immunity. The courts which have recognized this exception have proceeded on the theory that where the reason for a rule of law no longer exists, the rule itself ceases. The existence of liability insurance is, therefore, recognized as preventing family discord and depletion of the family exchequer in automobile negligence cases. See for example Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402, 411, 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963); Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. at 362.
Prior to 1963, the only attempt at complete abrogation of parental immunity had been made by an intermediate appellate court in Wells v. Wells, 48 S.W.2d 109 (Mo. App. 1932), but that decision was not followed by other courts. In 1963, in Goller v. White, 20 Wis. 402, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin abrogated parental immunity in negligence cases except in two situations: (1) Where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child, and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care. Goller has now been followed by a substantial minority of jurisdictions. See for example, Plumley v. Klein, 388 Mich. 1, 199 N.W.2d 169 (1972); Hebel v. Hebel, 435 P.2d 8. In recent years seven jurisdictions have abolished parental immunity without restrictions:
It is obvious from this historical review of the doctrine of parental immunity, with its many exceptions, that there has been a wide variance in the acceptance and application of the rule throughout this country.
In 1977, the American Law Institute adopted § 895G of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1979), which rejected the immunity from liability in tort between parent and child. In lieu thereof, it recognized privileges arising out of the parent-child relationship. It states as follows:
"§ 895G. Parent and Child.
In the comment to § 895G, the Restatement discusses the history, justifications, exceptions, and abrogation of the doctrine of parental immunity. The comment to subsection (2) states in part as follows:
As we observed in the beginning, our task is to decide which rule best serves the needs of justice in Kansas in the closing years of the twentieth century. In so doing, we must recognize that the more recent decisions rejecting parental immunity are indicative of a "growing judicial distaste for a rule of law which in one sweep disqualified an entire class of injured minors." Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal. 3d  at 918. We believe that the authorities which favor abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine state the proper approach in light of modern conditions and conceptions of public policy. We see no good reason why children should not enjoy the same right to protection and to legal redress for wrongs done them as others enjoy. We question the view that a regard for family harmony and tranquility necessitates denial of tort recovery to a child injured in an automobile accident.
We are inclined to agree with Judge Fuld's dissent in Badigian v. Badigian, 9 N.Y.2d 472, 478, 215 N.Y.S.2d 35, 174 N.E.2d 718 (1961), which states in part as follows:
We have concluded that, under the factual circumstances of this case, an unemancipated minor child may recover damages in an action brought against a parent for personal injuries caused by the negligence of the parent in the operation of a motor vehicle. This conclusion is consistent with a growing list of states which, in recent years, have adopted this position. States which have abolished parental immunity in all cases or in automobile accident cases include:
Alaska  Hebel v. Hebel, 435 P.2d 8 (1967);
Connecticut  G.S. 1979 Supp. 52-572c;
Kentucky  Rigdon v. Rigdon, 465 S.W.2d 921 (1971);
North Carolina  G.S. 1979 Supp. 1-539.21;
It should be noted that the states listed above have followed for many years the rule which we have adopted today. Yet there apparently has been no significant disruption in family relationships as grimly predicted by the prophets of doom who insist on the application of parental immunity in automobile negligence cases.
We believe that the argument that parental immunity is necessary to preserve the tranquility and harmony of domestic life misconceives the facts of domestic life. The primary disruption to harmonious family relationships is not the lawsuit brought for damages after the injury but the injury itself, resulting from the misconduct of a parent. Falco v. Pados, 444 Pa. at 380. It can hardly aid family reconciliation to deny an injured child access to the courts and, through them, to any liability insurance which the family might maintain.
In Kansas, motor vehicle liability insurance is mandatory under K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3104. The required contents of each insurance policy are set out in K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3107. Although insurance cannot create liability where no legal duty previously existed, it remains, nevertheless, a proper element to be considered in a discussion of the public policy supporting abrogation of parental immunity. As pointed out in Streenz v. Streenz, where liability insurance exists, the domestic tranquility argument is hollow, for in reality the sought after litigation is not between child and parent but between child and parent's insurance carrier. Far from being a potential source of disharmony, the action is more likely to preserve the family unit in pursuit of a common goal  the easing of family financial difficulties stemming from the child's injuries. Gelbman v. Gelbman, 23 N.Y.2d  at 438; Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d at 412.
We recognize a practical problem is that of possible collusion between parent and child aimed at securing an unjustified recovery from an insurance company. But the possibility of collusion exists to a certain extent in any case. Every day we depend on *769 juries and trial judges to sift evidence in order to determine the facts and arrive at proper verdicts. Experience has shown that the courts are quite adequate for this task. In litigation between parent and child, judges and juries would naturally be mindful of the relationship and would be even more on the alert for improper conduct. We further must recognize that, under provisions ordinarily included in an insurance policy, the insurance company has the right to disclaim liability when there is lack of cooperation with the insurance company on the part of the insured. Lack of cooperation may be found in inconsistent or contradictory statements by the insured or in collusion between the injured party and the insured which results in false statements to the company.
In Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. at 365, the court commented on the danger of collusion between parent and child in the following language:
The possibility of collusion was advanced as an argument to justify the Kansas guest statute which was held unconstitutional in Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 518 P.2d 362 (1974). In Henry, we rejected this argument, stating that it is unreasonable to eliminate causes of action of an entire class of persons simply because some undefined portion of the designated class may file fraudulent lawsuits. We emphasized that courts must depend upon the efficiency of the judicial processes to ferret out the meritorious from the fraudulent in particular cases.
Our holding is limited to the factual circumstances of the case now before us  an automobile tort action brought by an unemancipated minor child against a parent. Allowance of such an *770 action does not undermine parental authority and discipline nor does it threaten to substitute judicial discretion for parental discretion in the care and rearing of minor children. We recognize that there may be parental exercises of discretion and authority which should be provided special protection in a court of law. Here we merely remove any barrier to the enforcement of liability between parent and child in an automobile accident case brought by an unemancipated minor against a parent. When confronted with other cases involving claimed parental immunity, we will at that time determine to what extent parental immunity or privilege should be recognized under the particular circumstances of the case then before us.
For the reasons set forth above the judgment of the district court is reversed. The case is remanded to the district court with directions to set aside the order of summary judgment entered below and to permit the parties to proceed with the determination of the issues presented in the case.
SCHROEDER, C.J., dissenting:
The majority has attempted to beat a careful, well-measured retreat from the doctrine of parental immunity for negligent torts against unemancipated children. However, I am not deceived by the attempt to limit this monumental shift in policy to auto negligence cases. The rationale and policy behind the majority opinion subjects Kansas families to the constant threat of litigation for all negligent acts of the parents.
Justice McFarland of the Arizona Supreme Court expressed similar fears in his excellent dissent in Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. 86, 89-90, 471 P.2d 282 (1970), stating:
The majority attacks the historical basis of the doctrine, reciting the absence of citations in the original Mississippi case and the absence of an English common law background. That is the mode of attack consistently used by the opponents of parental immunity. Just as consistently, those attackers downplay the significant fact that a numerical majority of courts have considered the merits of parental immunity and have adopted or retained it. See Owens v. Auto Mut. Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9, 177 So. 133 (1937); Welter v. Curry, 260 Ark. 287, 539 S.W.2d 264 (1976); Rambo v. Rambo, 195 Ark. 832, 114 S.W.2d 468 (1938); Trevarton v. Trevarton, 151 Colo. 418, 378 P.2d 640 (1963); Reaves v. Horton, 33 Colo. App. 186, 518 P.2d 1380 (1973); Strahorn v. Sears, Roebuck &amp; Co., 50 Del. 50, 123 A.2d 107 (1956); Orefice v. Albert, 237 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 1970); Horton v. Unigard Ins. Co., 355 So. 2d 154 (Fla. App. 1978); Wisenbaker v. Zeigler, 140 Ga. App. 90, 230 S.E.2d 97 (1976); Eschen v. Roney, 127 Ga. App. 719, 194 S.E.2d 589 (1972); Vaughan v. Vaughan, 161 Ind. App. 497, 316 N.E.2d 455 (1974); Barlow v. Iblings, 261 Iowa 713, 156 N.W.2d 105 (1968); Downs v. Poulin, 216 A.2d 29 (Me. 1966); Montz v. Mendaloff, 40 Md. App. 220, 388 A.2d 568 (1978); McNeal v. Administrator of Estate of McNeal, 254 So. 2d 521 (Miss. 1971); Bahr v. Bahr, 478 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. 1972); State Farm Mutual v. Leary, 168 Mont. 482, 544 P.2d 444 (1975); Pullen v. Novak, 169 Neb. 211, 99 N.W.2d 16 (1959); Nahas v. Noble, 77 N.M. 139, 420 P.2d 127 (1966); Teramano v. Teramano, 6 Ohio St.2d 117, 216 N.E.2d 375 (1966); Chaffin v. Chaffin, 239 Or. 374, 397 P.2d 771 (1964); Castellucci v. Castellucci, 96 R.I. 34, 188 A.2d 467 (1963); Gunn v. Rollings, 250 S.C. 302, 157 S.E.2d 590 (1967); Campbell *772 v. Gruttemeyer, 222 Tenn. 133, 432 S.W.2d 894 (1968); Felderhoff v. Felderhoff, 473 S.W.2d 928 (Texas 1971); Stevens v. Murphy, 69 Wash. 2d 939, 421 P.2d 668 (1966); Oldman v. Bartshe, 480 P.2d 99 (Wyo. 1971).
Again, Arizona's Justice McFarland persuasively writes:
The validity and significance of the original reasons for adopting the parental immunity doctrine have not waned. Domestic tranquility, proper parental discipline and control, family unity, and social responsibility are integral elements of America's success as a nation and culture. In our free society, at a time when government and institutions are daily encroaching on the sanctity of the nuclear family, it is crucial to reaffirm our dependence on the family unit. The parent-child relation is the fertile basis for the care, education, moral and spiritual training of our children. The words of the majority in Small v. Morrison, 185 N.C. 577, 584-85, 118 S.E. 12 (1923), ring true today:
Following a similar rationale, the Washington Supreme Court in Borst v. Borst, 41 Wash. 2d 642, 656, 251 P.2d 149 (1952) stated:
The appellant and the majority contend that public policy has changed markedly since the early decisions like Small v. Morrison, 185 N.C. 577. The majority states that "our task is to decide which rule best serves the needs of justice in Kansas in the *774 closing years of the twentieth century." Ante at 766. Yet, a cursory reading of the majority opinion reveals the primary force behind the move to abolish parental immunity is the existence of liability insurance, not a desire to serve the needs of justice. Specifically, we are reminded that Kansas statutorily compels liability insurance for motor vehicles (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 40-3104). It is argued that liability insurance eliminates the threat of disrupting family harmony and subverting parental discipline. The argument is not convincing. The existence of liability insurance does not remove the inherent danger of the destruction of the parent-child relationship. See Stevens v. Murphy, 69 Wash. 2d  at 948.
Evidence that a tort-feasor possesses liability insurance coverage is inadmissible in Kansas courts. K.S.A. 60-454. In Alcaraz v. Welch, 205 Kan. 163, 166, 468 P.2d 185 (1970), we stated:
Our well established policy on the inadmissibility of evidence of liability insurance coverage is in accord with the decisions of most states. The fact that the particular defendant-parent is protected by insurance against legal liability does not enable the minor to maintain the action if he could not otherwise have done so. 59 Am.Jur.2d, Parent and Child § 156, p. 255. The prevalence of liability insurance should not be used as a subterfuge to create a cause of action against the insured parent.
I agree with Justice Cochran of the Virginia Supreme Court, who dissented in Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181, 189, 183 S.E.2d 190 (1971), stating:
The majority has given birth to more than one cause of action. We have twins, or perhaps triplets. For with each suit between parent and child, we can expect numerous allegations and potential lawsuits for either lack of cooperation or collusion.
If the majority's arguments about liability insurance are accepted at face value, there are still going to be problems. Although liability insurance is statutorily required, there is a minimum requirement of only $15,000 bodily injury coverage. In addition, there are always uninsured motorists evading the legal requirements. Even Professor Prosser recognizes the cost of premiums will be taken from the family's purse. See Prosser, Law of Torts § 123 at 868 (4th ed. 1971); see also Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. at 92.
In a contested suit by an unemancipated child against a parent, the child's attorney as guardian ad litem, or in some cases where the guardian ad litem is not a member of the Bar, the attorney employed by the guardian ad litem for the child will be paid attorney fees totaling up to half of the child's recovery. Another winner will be the insurance companies  they use actuarial information to calculate premiums to make a profit, insuring carefully calculated risks. See Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. at 92.
Although interspousal immunity is rooted in a distinctly different common law background, it nevertheless reflects the same basic public policy as parent-child immunity. In Sink v. Sink, 172 Kan. 217, 219, 239 P.2d 933 (1952), we recognized the sound reasoning that interspousal litigation would disrupt family harmony. We have repeatedly affirmed that policy decision in O'Grady v. Potts, 193 Kan. 644, 396 P.2d 285 (1964); Fisher v. Toler, 194 Kan. 701, 401 P.2d 1012 (1965); and Miles v. West, 224 Kan. 284, 580 P.2d 876 (1978). We have not accepted the argument that liability insurance eliminates the need for interspousal immunity. We should not accept that argument now leveled against parent-child immunity.
I find indefensible the argument of the court that a happy, crippled child whose parents are worthy of affection will be unwilling to sue the negligent parent, and will have no need or thought to sue. To be intelligently informed the child will need *776 competent independent legal advice concerning his or her legal rights. Lacking this, the threat of suit hangs over the parents until some time after emancipation of the child when the statute of limitations has run. (K.S.A. 60-515.) The court notes Judge Fuld's dissent in Badigian v. Badigian, 9 N.Y.2d 472, 478, 215 N.Y.S.2d 35, 174 N.E.2d 718 (1961), and cites Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. 350, 339 N.E.2d 907 (1975). The threat of suit will be particularly disturbing to parents in our litigious society in the "closing years of the twentieth century."
The unsupported statement of the court, that states which have followed the rule of law adopted today have apparently had "no significant disruption in family relationships as grimly predicted by the prophets of doom," bears analysis. The assertion challenges a review of recent activity and editorial comment on the national scene.
At the Second National Conference on the Judiciary held in Williamsburg, Virginia, March 19-22, 1978, U.S. Justice Department officials, judges, lawyers, legislators, government officials, professors and influential citizens from across the United States, and judges from common law countries, were assembled by the National Center for State Courts.
The keynote speaker, Fred W. Friendly, Edward R. Murrow, Professor of Journalism, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, addressed the assembly "On Judging the Judges." His opening remarks were:
Unveiled at the conference, and the subject of the conference discussion, was "The Public Image of Courts." The National Center for State Courts had commissioned a survey of more than 3,000 citizens, community leaders, lawyers and judges by Yankelovich, Skelly and White. The results were published at the conference. The bottom line of the whole conference was that the public image of the courts, particularly state courts, was bad.
Following the Williamsburg II conference, in the December 4, 1978, issue of U.S. News and World Report, the banner headline on the cover of the weekly magazine bore the words: "Why Everybody is Suing Everybody." This was the subject of a special report, beginning at page 50, by the associate editor David F. Pike. The first three paragraphs in the editorial read:
At the beginning of the editorial is a cartoon depicting a defiant child sitting at the breakfast table with his parents. The punch line is a remark by the father to the son: "If I make you drink your milk, you'll SUE me?" While U.S. News and World Report is not persuasive as precedent in a legal opinion, the subject of the article and its contents represent fair editorial comment under the United States constitutional protection of free speech and freedom of the press. Following the Williamsburg II Conference and the release of the poll conducted by Yankelovich, Skelly and White, it may fairly be said the editorial discloses public disenchantment with the litigious state of affairs "in the closing years of the twentieth century."
The November 13, 1978, issue of U.S. News and World Report carried an editorial entitled "Our Hungry Lawyers." This triggered a flood of letters to the editor, and in the December 4, 1978, issue of the same magazine, at page 55, a sampling of the lawyers' comments was published.
What is the reaction in Kansas to the litigious state of affairs "in the closing years of the twentieth century?"
The fiscal year 1981 budget of the Judicial Branch of Kansas Government was first studied in the 1980 legislative session by a Ways and Means Subcommittee of the Kansas House of Representatives. The subcommittee consisted of five members of the Ways and Means Committee, two of them being lawyers. In the subcommittee's report concerning House Bill No. 2828, sec. 5, the following is stated:
The instant case is not the first bout the Kansas Supreme Court has had with the abrogation of judicially created immunities from suit. In Carroll v. Kittle, 203 Kan. 841, 457 P.2d 21 (1969), this court abolished the governmental immunity doctrine for torts, when the state or its governmental agencies were engaged in proprietary activities. The doctrine abrogated was of judicial origin. The legislature at its next session enacted K.S.A. 46-901 et seq., (L. 1970, ch. 200, §§ 1-13) and reimposed legislatively the governmental immunity which the court in Carroll v. Kittle abolished.
Later, the doctrine of governmental immunity legislatively declared in K.S.A. 46-901 et seq., was attacked and held to be unconstitutional and void in Brown v. Wichita State University, 217 Kan. 279, 540 P.2d 66 (1975) (Brown I), by a divided court; but on rehearing the court reversed that decision in Brown v. Wichita State University, 219 Kan. 2, 547 P.2d 1015 (1976) (Brown II). In the period between Brown I, handed down by the court on June 9, 1975, and the court's reversal of its decision in Brown II on March 6, 1976, total damages of many millions of dollars were sought by various plaintiffs who filed lawsuits against the state as a result of the abrogation of immunity in Brown I.
The primary function of the law as applied through the court system is to provide a means for peaceful resolution of legal disputes. In my opinion, the court by its decision herein has gone over dead center, created legal rights where none heretofore existed, and has put in motion a device to crack the fundamental unit in our free civilized society  the family unit; just as scientists have created the mechanism by which to crack the fundamental unit of all matter in nature  the atom  thereby making it possible to unleash in the atom bomb a horrendous instrument of destruction for mankind.
It is respectfully submitted the judgment of the learned trial judge should be affirmed.
McFARLAND, J., dissenting:
The majority opinion adopts the rule that henceforth a child may sue its parent for injuries received *779 through the parent's operation of a motor vehicle, and thereby creates a new cause of action. Major public policy considerations are inherent therein, including:
1. Is there a need for such a cause of action?
2. If the need exists, should it be limited to situations where insurance is present? (Within this question is the legal determination of whether this is a legitimate basis of limitation.)
3. What has been the experience of other states abolishing parental immunity, either in whole or in part?
4. Will insurance rates rise for parents of minor children and, if so, will such rise be in direct proportion to the number of minor children in the family?
5. If the increased risk is to be spread across all automobile insurance policies, regardless of whether or not the owner of the vehicle has minor children, then how much raise will be involved?
6. How great is the danger of collusion?
7. What will be the effect on family unity?
8. On balance, do the benefits of the change outweigh its cost, both financially and socially?
These questions can only be answered by full legislative inquiry. If a change is to be made in the existing law, the change should come through the legislature  not the courts.
If the existing law is to be judicially changed, then I would:
1. Exclude ordinary negligence as a cause of action except when arising out of the parent's business; and
2. Limit the cause of action to intentional torts and acts of gross or wanton negligence.