Foy v. Foy Electric Co
| Decision Date | 23 November 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 521.,521. |
| Citation | 56 S.E.2d 418,231 N.C. 161 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | FOY. v. FOY ELECTRIC CO. |
Joan Annette Foy, by her next friend, Thomas G. Lane, Jr., sued the Foy Electrict Company for injuries allegedly caused by actionable negligence of defendant in operation of its truck by its agent, who was father of infant plaintiff.
From a ruling of Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, Frank M. Armstrong, J., striking certain averments from defendant's answer, the defendant appealed.
The Supreme Court, in a Per Curiam decision, affirmed the ruling, holding that the action was not against public policy because Infant's parents owned one-half of outstanding stock of defendant corporation.
Civil action to recover for damages for alleged actionable negligence of defendant in the operation of its truck by its servant and agent, Howard J. Foy.
The case was heard upon motion of plaintiff to strike from defendant's further answer these averments: (1) That at the time referred to in the complaint the infant plaintiff was daughter of said Howard J. Foy, --living in his household as a member of his family; (2) that Howard J. Foy and his wife, the mother of infant plaintiff, own one-half of the outstanding stock of defendant corporation; and (3) that, to the extent of his stock ownership in the corporation, the action is in effect against Howard J. Foy by his infant daughter, the maintenance of which is against public policy. The presiding judge allowed the motion to strike paragraph two and three, but disallowed it as to the remaining paragraph.
Defendant appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.
McDougle, Ervin & Horack, Frank W. Snepp, Jr., Charlotte, for plaintiff appellee.
Robinson & Jones, John M. Robinson, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Skinner v. Whitley
...the parent and cannot be asserted by the employer. Stapleton v. Stapleton, 85 Ga.App. 728, 70 S.E.2d 156 (1952); Foy v. Foy Electric Co., 231 N.C. 161, 56 S.E.2d 418 (1949); Wright v. Wright, 229 N.C. [281 N.C. 482] 503, 50 S.E.2d 540 (1948); Mi-Lady Cleaners v. McDaniel, 235 Ala. 469, 179 ......
-
Barlow v. Iblings
...22 N.E.2d 254, 123 A.L.R. 1015, which allowed a minor child to recover from his minor sister for tortious injuries; Foy v. Foy Elec. Co., 231 N.C. 161, 56 S.E.2d 418, which allowed a suit by unemancipated child against a corporation in which his parents owned half the stock. After extensive......
-
Dzenutis v. Dzenutis
...for the injuries he received. Chase v. New Haven Waste Material Corporation, supra, 111 Conn. 382, 150 A. 107; Foy v. Foy Electric Co., 231 N.C. 161, 56 S.E.2d 418 (1949). The defendant suggests that, even if an exception to parent-child immunity for business activities may be desirable, th......
-
Cox v. Shaw
...of his son's immunity. Plaintiff relies upon the case of Wright v. Wright, 229 N.C. 503, 50 S.E.2d 540, followed in Foy v. Foy Electric Co., 231 N.C. 161, 56 S.E.2d 418. In Wringht, a sixyear-old boy was permitted to sue his father's employer, a taxicab operator, for injuries caused by the ......