Black v. Solmitz

• Decision Date: 18 December 1979
• Citation: 409 A.2d 634,6 A.L.R.4th 1054
• Parties: Stephen A. BLACK, Administrator of the Estate of Ruben R. Solmitz v. David O. SOLMITZ, Administrator of the Estate of Esther M. Solmitz.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

Page 634

409 A.2d 634

6 A.L.R.4th 1054

Stephen A. BLACK, Administrator of the Estate of Ruben R. Solmitz v. David O. SOLMITZ, Administrator of the Estate of Esther M. Solmitz.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 18, 1979.

Powers & Bradford by Carl O. Bradford (orally), Freeport, for plaintiff.

Berman, Berman & Simmons by Jack H. Simmons (orally), Paul F. Macri, Lewiston, for defendant.

Before WERNICK, ARCHIBALD, GODFREY and NICHOLS, JJ., and DELAHANTY, A. R. J.

GODFREY, Justice.

On May 14, 1977, Ruben Solmitz, five years old, was a passenger in an automobile driven by his mother, Esther Solmitz, when that automobile collided head on with another vehicle on Route 2 near Farmington, Maine. The Solmitz vehicle was on the left side of the road at the point of impact. Esther Solmitz died instantly. Ruben suffered a severe injury to the brain which incapacitated him so that he could not walk, talk, sit up without support, or understand. The prospects for improvement of his condition were poor.

Stephen Black, as guardian of Ruben Solmitz, brought an action against Ruben's father, David Solmitz, as administrator of Esther's estate, alleging negligence by Esther in the operation of the automobile with resulting damages. Defendant moved to dismiss on the ground that the action was barred by application of the rule of parental immunity. Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiff duly appealed to the Law Court on May 18, 1978. On May 31, 1978, Ruben Solmitz died, and the parties agreed to substitute Stephen Black, administrator of the estate of Ruben Solmitz, for Stephen Black, guardian of Ruben Solmitz. No allegation has been made that Ruben's death was caused by the injuries sustained in the accident.

The significant facts in the present case are similar to those in Downs v. Poulin, Me., 216 A.2d 29 (1966), except that the parent who operated the automobile in Downs survived the accident for a few weeks whereas in the present case she was killed instantly. Like the present case, Downs involved an unemancipated minor child, bringing an action against its parent's estate for bodily injuries caused by the negligence of the parent in the operation of an automobile in which the child was a passenger.

Appellant asks the Law Court to overrule Downs, which denied the injured child's claim. For reasons set forth in this opinion, we think that our application of the doctrine of parental immunity in Downs was incorrect and that the consequences of such an application are so unjust that the case should be overruled. We therefore sustain plaintiff's appeal. In doing so, however, we do not intend to repudiate the concept, underlying the decision in Downs but misapplied in that case, that certain acts or omissions that would be tortious between strangers may be privileged or non-tortious in appropriate circumstances because of the relationship between parents and their unemancipated minor children.

When Downs was decided, in January, 1966, it was supported by the authority of judicial decisions in the great majority of American states. During the past thirteen years, however, the highest courts of many states have overruled their prior decisions applying the doctrine in automobile negligence cases, notably Arizona, Delaware (to the extent of automobile liability coverage), Kentucky, Massachusetts (to the extent of liability insurance coverage), Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. ¹ The supreme courts of Alaska, Nevada and Vermont, squarely confronting the question for the first time, have refused to apply the doctrine in motor vehicle negligence cases. ² In cases involving parental negligence not in the operation of a motor vehicle, California and Hawaii have repudiated their former rule of immunity. ³ Wisconsin had already rejected the rule in a non-automobile case before Downs was decided. ⁴ Connecticut and the Carolinas have enacted statutes abrogating the rule in automobile negligence actions resulting in personal injury. ⁵ In 1977, the American Law Institute adopted the following language in 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 895G (1979):

" § 895G. Parent and Child

(1) A parent or child is not immune from tort liability to the other solely by reason of that relationship.

(2) Repudiation of general tort immunity does not establish liability for an act or omission that, because of the parent-child relationship, is otherwise privileged or is not tortious."

The strong trend against across-the-board application of a rule of parental immunity in tort cases reflects a growing recognition that such a sweeping application results in excessive protection of the interests favored by the rule in derogation of the general principle that there should be no wrong without a remedy. ⁶ The opinion in Downs identifies those favored interests as, first, the promotion of family harmony and parental authority and discipline, and, second, where liability insurance is available, protection of the insurer against the danger of collusive actions between parent and child. Downs v. Poulin, supra at 30-31, 33.

The first reason assigned in Downs as justification for the result, namely, the promotion of family harmony and parental authority and discipline, cannot withstand close scrutiny. So many exceptions and qualifications have evolved in application of the rule of parental immunity that the asserted rationale can no longer serve as a valid basis for a sweeping denial of liability. Thus, the doctrine does not apply if the child is of legal age or emancipated at the time of the tort, ⁷ even though a lawsuit against a parent by an adult child living with the parent would seem to be as disruptive as one by a minor child.

The doctrine is not applied against an unemancipated child who sues his parent for an injury to his property or for vindication of property rights under a deed or will. ⁸ The anomaly of the property exceptions was noted by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Signs v. Signs, 156 Ohio St. 566, 576, 103 N.E.2d 743, 748 (1952), in the following language:

"It seems absurd to say that it is legal and proper for an unemancipated child to bring an action against his parent concerning the child's property rights yet to be utterly without redress with reference to injury to his person.

It is difficult to understand by what legerdemain of reason, logic or law such a situation can exist or how it can be said that domestic harmony would be undisturbed in one case and be upset in the other."

The Ohio court in the Signs case adopted another generally recognized exception to the rule of parental immunity, holding a father liable for negligently injuring his minor child while acting in the course of his business or vocation. ⁹

Another exception, recognized in several states which formerly had or still have the rule of parental immunity, arises from the situation in which the negligent parent dies as a result of the same accident that injures the child. When the child sues the estate of the dead negligent parent, recovery has been permitted in those states on the ground that the reasons which may have justified barring the child's remedy against a living parent lose much of their force when the parent-child relationship is terminated by death. ¹⁰ In Downs v. Poulin our Court refused to adopt such an exception on the theory that the death of the negligent mother several weeks after the accident could "not create a cause of action" which did not exist during her life. The Court feared that to grant an exception would "open wide the door to permit unemancipated minors to file claims of all kinds sounding in tort against the estates of their parents." Downs v. Poulin, supra at 34. The Court thought also that to permit the exception "would be discriminating against children whose parents are living in favor of those whose parents are deceased" overlooking the greater discrimination created by applying the rule against a minor child who sustains bodily injury as the result of negligent operation of an automobile by its parent in favor of other persons who are injured by the same negligent act.

One of the peculiarities of the doctrine is that it is usually not applied to give immunity for the intentional or reckless infliction of bodily harm. E. g., Mahnke v. Moore, 197 Md. 61, 77 A.2d 923 (1951) ("malicious and wanton wrongs"); Hoffman v. Tracy, 67 Wash.2d 31, 406 P.2d 323 (1965) (parent driving while intoxicated). See 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 895G, Comment E (1979). One would suppose that two interests the doctrine is supposed to protect, domestic harmony and parental authority, would be served as well by giving parents the same immunity for their intentional or reckless torts as for their negligence in cases where they cause bodily injury to their unemancipated minor children. The reason sometimes given for the difference is that when parents intentionally or recklessly inflict bodily injury on their children (beyond the permitted range of disciplinary privilege, of course), they temporarily abandon their parental responsibility. See Hoffman v. Tracy, supra. The cases do not explain why parents should not be deemed also to abandon temporarily their parental responsibility when they negligently cause bodily harm to their children.

Our Court in Downs v. Poulin, relying heavily on what was in 1966 the great weight of authority, cited decisions from twenty-one jurisdictions upholding the application of parental immunity as a bar to the claim of an unemancipated minor child for damages resulting from the parent's negligence. Downs v. Poulin, supra at 30. Of the twenty-one jurisdictions referred to by the Court as applying the rule, six have since expressly overruled their earlier decisions on which this Court relied: Massachusetts (to the extent of automobile liability insurance), Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia (in...