referring to section 874A as indicating that sometimes “a common law court will assimilate the statutory duty into an existing principle of liability, as for instance [a] negligence action * * *, but that is not always so”
How later courts described this case
- referring to section 874A as indicating that sometimes “a common law court will assimilate the statutory duty into an existing principle of liability, as for instance [a] negligence action * * *, but that is not always so”
- “Courts should exercise restraint in fields in which the legislature has attempted fairly comprehensive social regulation.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TONGUE, J.,
concurring.
Although I agree with much of the dissent and, for that reason, disagree with much of the reasoning of the majority opinion, I concur in the result reached by the majority. The doctrine of intrafamily tort immunity has been previously abandoned by this court with respect to intentional torts resulting in physical injuries. In my opinion, however, it does not follow that the doctrine should also be abandoned with respect to intrafamily torts resulting in "mental and emotional injuries” for reasons stated by the majority, although not in the context of intrafamily tort immunity.