Herzfeld v. Herzfeld
Decision Date | 15 March 2001 |
Docket Number | No. SC95054.,SC95054. |
Parties | Gary HERZFELD, Petitioner, v. Frank HERZFELD, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Sharon L. Kegerreis and Mayda Prego of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed LLP, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
David C. Rash, North Miami Beach, FL, for Respondent.
We have for review the opinion in Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 732 So.2d 1102 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999), which certified conflict with the opinion in Richards v. Richards, 599 So.2d 135 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. At issue in this case is whether the public policies served by the parental immunity doctrine continue to support its valid application to claims of sexual abuse by a parent against a child. Because we find that in such cases family harmony is already substantially diminished, and the remaining relevant policy considerations are insufficient to support application of the doctrine to these circumstances, we approve the decision in Herzfeld.
The intentional torts alleged here are: (1) assault and battery; (2) false imprisonment; and (3) intentional infliction of emotional distress, all based on allegations of sexual abuse. The facts underlying the alleged abuse by the parent against the child are summarized in the Third District's opinion as follows:
As noted, Judge Gersten's opinion contains a thorough analysis, and we borrow from much of that analysis here. Legal commentators note that the rule granting parents legal immunity from tort actions brought by their children does not have its origins or any long roots in the English common law, but appears, rather, to have been created by American state courts. Commentators trace the rule's origin to an opinion of the Mississippi Supreme Court decided in 1891. The case involved a young married woman, separated from her husband at the time, who sued her mother for wrongfully confining her to an insane asylum when she was a minor.1 See Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885 (1891). In reviewing the young woman's claim, the court noted that "so long as the parent is under obligation to care for, guide, and control, and the child is under reciprocal obligation to aid and comfort and obey, no such action as this can be maintained." Id. at 887. The court explained its rationale:
The peace of society, and of the families composing society, and a sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society, forbid to the minor child a right to appear in court in the assertion of a claim to civil redress for personal injuries suffered at the hands of the parent. The state, through its criminal laws, will give the minor child protection from parental violence and wrong-doing, and this is all the child can be heard to demand.
Id.2 The doctrine was accepted and further developed in opinions by the Supreme Courts of Tennessee and Washington, and later by other state courts. See Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242, 79 P. 788 (1905), overruled in part by Borst v. Borst, 41 Wash.2d 642, 251 P.2d 149 (1952); McKelvey v. McKelvey, 111 Tenn. 388, 77 S.W. 664 (1903), overruled by Broadwell v. Holmes, 871 S.W.2d 471 (Tenn.1994).
In McKelvey, the Tennessee Supreme Court reasoned that allowing a minor's suit would interfere with public policy supporting discretionary parental control and discipline. See McKelvey, 77 S.W. at 664-65. In Roller, the Supreme Court of Washington emphasized its concerns that no practical line could be developed to separate meritorious claims from those based on actions properly and routinely taken by a parent against a child as part of the exercise of a broad parental discretion.3See Roller, 79 P. at 789. Other courts have added a concern of the possibility of fraud and collusion between family members and the depletion of family resources as additional rationales for the immunity doctrine.4 However, the concern with family integrity has remained at the core of the doctrine.
Although the majority of states in this country initially adopted the parental immunity doctrine in varying degrees,5 many have now either abrogated the doctrine completely6 or have established significant exceptions to its application.7 Those courts have reexamined and, in many instances, rejected outright the public policy rationales originally asserted in support of the doctrine. For example, in Guess v. Gulf Ins. Co., 96 N.M. 27, 627 P.2d 869, 871 (1981), the New Mexico Supreme Court concluded that family relationships are affected to a far greater extent by the misconduct of the party against whom the suit is filed than by the legal action based on that misconduct. And, in Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal.3d 914, 92 Cal.Rptr. 288, 479 P.2d 648 (1971), the California Supreme Court held that the policy reasons originally cited in support of the doctrine had been demonstrated to be insufficient to sustain a continued total bar to parent-child suits based upon wrongful conduct:
We think that the reasoning of those decisions [abrogating the doctrine] has totally destroyed two of the three grounds traditionally advanced in support of parental immunity: (1) disruption of family harmony and (2) fraud or collusion between family "adversaries." The third ground, the threat to parental authority and discipline, although of legitimate concern, cannot sustain a total bar to parent-child negligence suits.
Id., 92 Cal.Rptr. 288, 479 P.2d at 651; see also Shearer v. Shearer, 18 Ohio St.3d 94, 480 N.E.2d 388, 391 (1985) ( ). Other courts have partially retreated from use of the doctrine and have held it should not apply in circumstances which include negligence claims involving accidents covered by liability insurance,8 or some intentional tort claims.9
Abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine in accident cases has been largely based on the prevalence of liability insurance. Importantly, the courts have emphasized that the domestic harmony policy concern is diminished under these circumstances because the injured child's dispute is actually with the financially responsible insurance carrier rather than with the parents. See Streenz v. Streenz, 106 Ariz. 86, 471 P.2d 282, 284 (1970) (), overruled on other grounds by Broadbent v. Broadbent, 184 Ariz. 74, 907 P.2d 43 (1995). The courts have also noted that allowing recovery against an insurance fund would not impact family assets. See Sorensen v. Sorensen, 369 Mass. 350, 339 N.E.2d 907, 914 (1975) ( ).10 Similarly, claims that fraud would increase in such cases have been rejected either outright as no greater than concerns about fraud in any litigation, or as insufficiently demonstrated. See, e.g., Glaskox v. Glaskox, 614 So.2d 906, 912 (Miss.1992); Kirchner v. Crystal, 15 Ohio St.3d 326, 474 N.E.2d 275, 278 (1984).
Notably, some courts have created specific exceptions to the parental immunity doctrine for sexual abuse cases.11 See, e.g., Henderson v. Woolley, 230 Conn. 472, 644 A.2d 1303 (1994); Hurst v. Capitell, 539 So.2d 264, 266 (Ala.1989); Doe v. Holt, 332 N.C. 90, 418 S.E.2d 511 (1992); Wilson v. Wilson, 742 F.2d 1004, 1005 (6th Cir.1984). However, courts have sometimes reached different conclusions depending on whether such claims are raised in a negligence or intentional tort context.12
For instance, in Robinson v. Robinson, 323 Ark. 224, 914 S.W.2d 292 (1996), a child brought an intentional tort suit against...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sepaugh v. LaGrone
...6 A.L.R.4th 1066, 1113-25 (1981). Indeed, as of 2001, eleven states had abrogated the doctrine completely. See Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070, 1073-74 (Fla.2001). But I am not arguing for that result. I believe the law established by the supreme court in Felderhoff and Jilani easily s......
-
Garcia v. Carnival Corp.
...theory of liability. Florida courts recognize battery, assault, and false imprisonment as intentional torts. See Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070, 1071 (Fla.2001) (referring to assault, battery, and false imprisonment as “intentional torts”). While Garcia is correct to assert that the p......
-
Claire's Boutiques, Inc. v. Locastro ex rel. Locastro
...v. Quest, 414 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1982). Parents are generally immune from tort claims brought by their children. Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So. 2d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 2001). Such immunity has been premised on public policies that favor harmonious familial relations and parental discretion over d......
-
Hill v. Klous
...1337 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (“Florida courts recognize battery, assault, and false imprisonment as intentional torts.”); Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070, 1071 (Fla. 2001). Plaintiff does not, and cannot, point to any authority suggesting that such conduct arises under the U.S. Constitution, ......
-
Playing the odds or playing God? Limiting parental ability to create disabled children through preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
...for conduct done at a business enterprise, for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, and for sexual abuse); Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 781 So.2d 1070 (Fla. 2001) (holding that there is an exception for intentional sexual abuse); Fager v. Hundt, 610 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. 1993) (finding an except......
-
Harry Lee Anstead: Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida.
...under Florida's Security and Communications Act, ES. Ch. 934 (1989). Finally, in a more recent case, Gary Herzfeld v. Frank Herzfeld, 781 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 2001), Anstead held that the parental immunity doctrine did not apply to intentional sexual A 16-year-old son, a former foster child, s......