# Falco v. PADOS

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 12, 1971 · 444 Pa. 372

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702576

## Case

- **Full name:** Falco v. Pados (Et Al., Appellant)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 12, 1971
- **Citations:** 444 Pa. 372; 282 A.2d 351; 1971 Pa. LEXIS 799
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Pomeroy
- **Judges:** Boberts, Jones, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts, Pomeroy, Barbieri, Bell
- **Cited by:** 111 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/9702576

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating "automobile liability insurance imposes upon the insurer the duty to pay all sums for which the insured shall become obligated by reason of any liability imposed by law upon the insured"

## Opinion text

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Pomeroy :
I agree that the parental immunity doctrine, as it generally has been applied, should be abrogated, and I join in the opinion of the Court subject to the caveat herein expressed. I believe, nevertheless, that these are areas of the parent-child relationship, unique in our society, to which the traditional concepts of negligence should not be applied. The Wisconsin Supreme Court, discarding the doctrine of parental immunity in Goller v. White, 20 Wis. 2d 402 , 122 N.W. 2d 193 (1963), excepted two situations from the scope of its decision: “(1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services and other care.” In my view, the premise upon which the parental immunity doctrine has traditionally been supported, preservation of family harmony and parental authority, is a valid reason for recognizing the Wisconsin court’s exceptions. While the facts of the case at bar do not involve the excepted areas, I add this caveat in light of the Court’s statement that “the doctrine of parental immunity has no rational purpose today, and henceforth will not be recognized in Pennsylvania.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702576. Public record. Not legal advice.