Court Opinion

ID: 9646928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:16:49.604349+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:42.603494
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge,
concurring in result.
On reflection, I think it must be recognized that the opinion in Bahr v. Bahr, 478 S.W.2d 400 (Mo.1972), is confusing. It should have explicitly held (1) that the Hewellette rule [Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885] may not effectually apply until evidence is presented, and (2) that the burden is oh the defendant to demonstrate that failure to apply the Hew-ellette rule “would seriously disturb the family relations and thus be contrary to public policy.”
Having said that, I would not adopt a per se rule “that where the mother and father have been divorced the parent who does not have the primary, general custody of the unemancipated minor child at the time the tort occurs is not immune from suit in tort by the child.”
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found there had been no disruption in the harmonious relationship between defendant and plaintiff because of the filing of this action. In view of this, the case should not have been dismissed.
I concur in result only.