Coffey v. Coffey
| Decision Date | 10 May 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 359PA89,359PA89 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Elvera A. COFFEY v. Michael COFFEY. |
On plaintiff's petition for discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of the decision of the Court of Appeals, 94 N.C.App. 717, 381 S.E.2d 467 (1989), affirming summary judgment for defendant entered by Collier, J., at the 12 July 1988 Regular Civil Session of Superior Court, Alexander County. Heard in the Supreme Court 10 April 1990.
Joel C. Harbinson, Taylorsville, for plaintiff-appellant.
Patrick, Harper & Dixon by James T. Patrick, Hickory, for defendant-appellee.
This is an action by a parent against her child for personal injuries received while she was a passenger in an automobile operated by the child. At the time of the accident the child was an unemancipated minor, but at the time of suit he had reached his majority. The Court of Appeals in a reasoned opinion by Judge Greene, concurred in by Judges Arnold and Lewis, concluded that the doctrine of parent-child immunity barred the suit and affirmed summary judgment entered for defendant in the Superior Court. 1
After carefully considering the briefs and arguments of counsel, we have determined that we improvidently allowed plaintiff's petition for further review.
DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
1 Judge John B. Lewis, Jr., dissented from the majority's decision that the Superior Court (Judge Robert D. Lewis, presiding at the 13 June 1988 Mixed Civil Session) erred in denying plaintiff's motion to amend her complaint to add the child's father as a party defendant. There was no appeal from this decision, and this aspect of the case is not before us.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Delta Environmental v. Wysong & Miles Co.
...94 N.C.App. 717, 381 S.E.2d 467, disc. review allowed, 325 N.C. 705, 388 S.E.2d 450 (1989), disc. review improvidently granted, 326 N.C. 586, 391 S.E.2d 40 (1990). However, proper reasons for denying a motion to amend include undue delay by the moving party and unfair prejudice to the nonmo......
-
Crowell v. Davis
...of the trial court. Coffey v. Coffey, 94 N.C.App. 717, 722, 381 S.E.2d 467, 471 (1989), disc. review improvidently granted,326 N.C. 586, 391 S.E.2d 40 (1990). For that reason, “we review a trial court's ruling on a motion to amend pleadings for abuse of discretion.” Bartlett Milling Co. v. ......
-
Doe By and Through Connolly v. Holt
...489, 342 S.E.2d 882 (1986); Coffey v. Coffey, 94 N.C.App. 717, 381 S.E.2d 467 (1989), disc. rev. improvidently allowed, 326 N.C. 586, 391 S.E.2d 40 (1990) (per curiam). However, in none of those cases was that issue presented. Furthermore, none of them distinguished or overruled Small, and ......
-
Walker v. Walker
...717, 722, 381 S.E.2d 467, 471, disc. review allowed, 325 N.C. 705, 388 S.E.2d 450 (1989), disc. review improvidently allowed, 326 N.C. 586, 391 S.E.2d 40 (1990). The trial judge's decision will not be disturbed on appeal absent showing an abuse of discretion. Henry v. Deen, 310 N.C. 75, 82,......