Opinion ID: 2088562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: brian's claim against stephen

Text: Brian appeals from a judgment entered by the Superior Court pursuant to a motion for directed verdict upon which decision had been reserved. The motion was granted following a verdict by the jury that would have awarded Brian the sum of $12,000. The motion for directed verdict in Brian's case was based entirely upon the law of this state as it existed at the time of the accrual of this action, July 25, 1976. At that time the controlling opinion of this court was Matarese v. Matarese, 47 R.I. 131, 131 A. 198 (1925). In that case this court held that there was no right of action between an unemancipated minor child and his parents arising out of tortious conduct. This case constituted the controlling law at the time that the case at bar was tried in the Superior Court. However, we overruled the doctrine of Matarese in Silva v. Silva, R.I., 446 A.2d 1013 (1982), seven days after the judgment in the instant case was rendered. In Silva we held that suits between unemancipated minor children and their parents for injuries suffered as the result of the negligent operation of motor vehicles were no longer to be barred by the principle of parent-child immunity. However, we went on to state that this holding would be applicable only to the party in Silva and prospectively to all other causes of action arising thirty or more days after the filing of this opinion. There is no question that the opinion in Silva rendered June 8, 1982, could not by its own terms be applicable to a claim that arose years before on July 25, 1976. As a consequence, the trial justice committed no error in applying the applicable law in respect to parent-child immunity in existence at the time of his decision on the motion for directed verdict. For the reasons stated, Stephen's appeal is sustained in part. Brian's appeal is denied and dismissed. The papers in the case may be remanded to the Superior Court for a recalculation of the judgment in Wendy's favor in accordance with this opinion. The Chief Justice participated in the oral argument and in the decision of the court, but he did not participate in the publication of the formal opinion.