stating “[t]he court may modify the common law, adopting such of its principles as are applicable and rejecting such others as are inapplicable.”
How later courts described this case
- stating “[t]he court may modify the common law, adopting such of its principles as are applicable and rejecting such others as are inapplicable.”
- abrogated the parental immunity rule in negligence cases except in certain situations; child permitted to sue for injuries resulting from auto accidents
- tort action by child against parent
- suit by child against parent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Peterson, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur because the policy of abrogating family immunity was decided in Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419 , 142 N. W. (2d) 66 . I am unable to distinguish an action by a child against a parent from one by a parent against a child.