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
Harman, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent from the holding of the majority which abrogates the parental immunity rule in automobile negligence cases.
The majority appears to ground its reasoning on the fact that liability insurance coverage exists in the vast majority of all cases arising as the result of automobile accidents. They overlook, however, that this decision has the effect of rewriting existing insurance contracts to extend coverage for injury to persons not contemplated by the contracting parties when coverage was written.
The rule adopted by the majority is a rule of expediency and not *190 of reason. Should a child be permitted to sue his parent for personal injury received as the result of the parent’s negligence in operating an automobile-and not be permitted to sue for negligence of the parent in operating a motor boat or a pony cart? Does reason dictate that a child should recover for injury as the result of his parent’s negligence in operating the family car and not recover for injury incurred through the parent’s negligence in operating the family lawn mower?
The failure of my brethren of the majority to abrogate the rule in its 'entirety is particularly significant. To me it indicates that they must be convinced that the underlying reasons for the rule, namely, to avoid disruption of the peace and tranquility of the home and to avoid disruption of the voluntary and natural course of the parents’ exchequer, are still valid.
The parental immunity rule was recognized as the law in Virginia in Norfolk Southern R. R. v. Gretakis, 162 Va. 597 , 174 S. E. 841 (1934). Eighteen regular sessions of the General Assembly have been held since that time. The failure of the General Assembly to modify this rule amounts, at least, to a tacit approval of the rule as established by this court.
To abrogate the rule, as the majority does today, amounts to judicial legislation in the sensitive area of the legal relationship between parent and child. In my opinion the enactment of such legislation should be left to the General Assembly, where it properly belongs.