stating that "[i]f the elimination of parental immunity were a bad legal position, one would reasonably expect to find that those states [that have now rejected the doctrine after initially adopting it] were experiencing problems with the abrogation ... [and] there is no evidence or persuasive material that any of these states [that never adopted the doctrine] ever suffered adverse consequences for the lack of such a rule"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[i]f the elimination of parental immunity were a bad legal position, one would reasonably expect to find that those states [that have now rejected the doctrine after initially adopting it] were experiencing problems with the abrogation ... [and] there is no evidence or persuasive material that any of these states [that never adopted the doctrine] ever suffered adverse consequences for the lack of such a rule"
- doctrine extends only to negligence arising from parental care, supervision or discretion
- abrogating parental and interspousal immunity
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Locher, J.,
dissenting. I dissent for the reasons given in my concurring opinions in Bonkowsky v. Bonkowsky (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 152, 154-155 [ 23 O.O.3d 188 ]; Mauk v. Mauk (1984), 12 Ohio St. 3d 156, 159 ; and in my dissenting opinion in Kirchner v. Crystal (1984), 15 Ohio St. 3d 326, 332 .