# Guterman v. Guterman

> Supreme Court of New Jersey · November 20, 1974 · 66 N.J. 69

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645829

## Case

- **Full name:** Carl Guterman, an Infant by His Guardian Ad Litem, Isaac Guterman, Plaintiff, and Isaac Guterman, Individually, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stuart Guterman, Defendant-Appellant, and Eva Guterman, Defendant; Eva Guterman, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Stuart Guterman, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey
- **Decided:** November 20, 1974
- **Citations:** 66 N.J. 69; 328 A.2d 233; 1974 N.J. LEXIS 138
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Clifford
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645829

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that suits for personal injuries based on negligent vehicular operation may be brought by parents against their unemancipated child, as well as by child against parent

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
On July IS, 1970 plaintiffs Isaac and Eva Guterman were passengers in au automobile operated by their unemancipated minor son, defendant-appellant, Stuart Guterman. Allegedly because of Stuart’s negligence the vehicle left the road. In his parents’ consolidated actions for personal injuries and related damages resulting from that accident, Stuart’s motion for summary judgment, apparently on the pleadings, was denied on the basis of this Court’s opininion in France v. A.P.A. Transport Corp., 56 N. J. 500 (1970). The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal. We granted defendant’s motion for certification of the appeal pending unheard in the Appellate Division, R. 2:12-2.
*71 The sole question raised is whether, in suits for personal injuries based on negligent vehicular operation, France v. A.P.A. Transport Corp., supra, allows only actions by an unemancipated child against his parent, or whether that decision was intended to and by its own terms did include actions brought by a parent against his unemancipated child.
Clearly it is the latter, as the trial judge here held. Justice Proctor said in France:
Our decision today goes no further than allowing suits between unemaneipated children and their parents for injuries suffered as a result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. [Id. at 507 (emphasis added)].
While in that landmark case the liability sought to be established was that of a parent to his unemancipated minor child, nothing in the opinion suggests that its principle was not intended to embrace actions by the parent against the child. To the extent that Di Martino v. Ventrella, 123 N. J. Super. 128 (Law Div. 1973) stands as authority to the contrary, it is in error and is expressly overruled.
Affirmed.
Clieeokd, J., concurring in result.
For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Clieeokd and P ashman, and Judge Coneokd — 6.
For reversal — None.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9645829. Public record. Not legal advice.