Later courts went against this
Overruled by Heino v. Harper, 306 Or. 347 (1988)
s also properly have found that parents whose `[p]hysical, mental or financial weakness [causes them] to provide what many a reasonable man would consider substandard maintenance, guidance, education and recreation for their children, and in many instances to provide a family home which is not reasonably safe as a place of abode,' should not be liable to the child for these `unintended injuries.' Chaffin v. Chaffin,…
The opinion
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.