Court Opinion

ID: 9763023
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:35:22.88125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:38.897401
License: Public Domain

STEINFELD, Judge
(concurring).
In the majority opinion it was noted that “Since 1891 there has been a recognized American doctrine that an unemancipated minor cannot maintain an action against his parent to recover damages for negligence. 19 A.L.R.2d 425, 439. This rule has been recognized in Kentucky, (citing cases).” In view of that rule I am convinced that the legal fraternity has long considered that a tort action by an un-emancipated child would not lie against its parent’s estate.
While I concur in the result in this case, I am apprehensive that the opinion of the majority may stir up stale claims and thereby disrupt tranquility among the remaining family members, which was one of the important reasons supporting the doctrine of parental immunity. As was done in Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402, 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963), I would hold that this decision should be effective only in the controversy before us and in such cases as arise from occurrences taking place after the issuance of the mandate herein.
MILLIKEN, J., joins with me in this separate concurring opinion.