Court Opinion

ID: 9601407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:43:07.351337+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:11.661533
License: Public Domain

SLOAN, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with Mr. Justice 0’Conneia.’s opinion that spousal immunity should no longer be retained. I have doubts, however, as to applying the same rule to parental immunity.
"When death occurs to a child as a result of parental neglect it is apparent, of course, that the wrongdoing parent benefits in any recovery. And by the majority opinion only the parent committing the greatest wrong becomes the beneficiary. The same is not true when a child is maimed. In that instance it is the child, protected by a judicially appointed and supervised guardian, who benefits. It does, therefore, appear to me that legislative action would be necessary to properly establish 'the circumstances and conduct which would justify recovery. To that extent I agree with the majority opinion.
If, however, the limits of liability are to be fixed by the court, I cannot agree that it would only be intentional conduct that would justify liability. I can find no justification for such a rule. For those reasons I cannot agree with the majority.