permitting child to maintain action against his parent, noting that domestic harmony is not threatened when there is insurance coverage.
How later courts described this case
- permitting child to maintain action against his parent, noting that domestic harmony is not threatened when there is insurance coverage.
- abolished rule of parental immunity in motor vehicle accident cases
- abolishing parental immunity in automobile accident cases
- abrogating doctrine in actions for automobile negligence
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*188 I’Anson, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that a child can maintain an action against a parent to. recover for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.
But I cannot agree that as a matter of law “a child under the age of 14 years is incapable of knowingly and voluntarily accepting an invitation to become a guest in an automobile so as to subject himself to the gross negligence rule.”
In adopting this rule the majority say that since we “are now dealing with capacity to assume a risk, rather than capacity to be negligent” they are justified in borrowing “from, rather than adopting entirely, the rule respecting the capacity of young children to exercise care and prudence.” I do not agree that it requires more intelligence and judgment on the part of a child to assume a risk than to be guilty of negligence.
I think a jury should determine whether a child between the ages of 7 and 14 is capable of becoming a guest passenger on the basis of his age, ability, intelligence and experience, and whether such a child could assume a risk.