Hurst v. Capitell
Decision Date | 16 January 1989 |
Citation | 539 So.2d 264 |
Parties | Melissa HURST v. Alfred Robert CAPITELL and Mary Jane Capitell. 87-982. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Tom Wright of Reese & Wright, Montgomery, for appellant.
Philip H. Butler and Scott R. Talkington of Robison & Belser, Robert C. Black of Hill, Hill, Carter, Franco, Cole & Black, Montgomery, for appellees.
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., and Kenneth S. Nunnelley and Dorothy F. Norwood, Asst. Attys. Gen., amicus curiae, for appellant.
Melissa Hurst, a minor, through her grandmother, sued her stepfather, Alfred Capitell, for damages based upon claims of sexual abuse. She also sued her natural mother, Mary Jane Capitell, claiming damages based upon her alleged aiding and abetting in Mr. Capitell's sexual abuse and based upon Mrs. Capitell's alleged willful and wanton conduct and negligent performance of her duties as a mother, all of which allegedly allowed the abuse to occur. The trial court dismissed the action as to Mrs. Capitell and granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Capitell, based upon the parental immunity doctrine because of his in loco parentis status. Melissa appeals from those rulings and asks us to reconsider the philosophy supporting the parental immunity doctrine and to abolish it.
The parental immunity doctrine had its genesis in the United States in Hewellette v. George, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885 (1891), in which a minor daughter was precluded from suing her deceased mother's estate for damages resulting from mental suffering and injury to her character incurred during her confinement in an asylum for 11 days caused by her mother. The court gave this reason for its holding:
68 Miss. at 711, 9 So. at 887.
The parental immunity doctrine was not based upon English common law, statutes, or previous cases; rather, it was judicially created by the Mississippi Supreme Court. In fact, even the Hewellette opinion recognized the limitation on the application of parental immunity to those cases involving unemancipated children:
Id., 68 Miss. at 711, 9 So. at 887. (Emphasis added.)
The first Alabama case addressing the issue of parental immunity, Owens v. Auto Mut. Indemnity Co., 235 Ala. 9, 177 So. 133 (1937), quoted from a New Hampshire case that states a similar reason for the rule:
"It is declared in Lloyd Dunlap v. Dunlap, 84 N.H. 352, 150 A. 905, 71 A.L.R. 1055 [1930] that the 'disability of a child to sue the parent for an injury negligently inflicted by the latter upon the former while a minor is not absolute, but is imposed for the protection of family control and harmony, and exists only where the suit, or the prospect of a suit, might disturb the family relations.' "
235 Ala. at 10, 177 So. at 134. (Emphasis added.)
We reaffirmed the doctrine in Hill v. Giordano, 447 So.2d 164 (Ala.1984) (Jones, J., dissenting), based on the authority of Owens, supra, and held that "any modification or abolition of the parental immunity doctrine should be left to the prerogative of the legislature." 447 So.2d at 164. However, we also stated three months later in Lloyd v. Service Corporation of Alabama, Inc., 453 So.2d 735 (Ala.1984):
(Emphasis added.)
Because the doctrine was judicially created, it is not exclusively a legislative issue and it may be judicially qualified. Since our decision in Hill to defer to the Legislature on this issue, the Legislature has declined to act in regard to the doctrine, while the incidents of sexual abuse involving children have continued to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henderson v. Woolley, 14818
...of the preservation of family harmony cannot justify immunity in the case of sexual abuse of a child by a parent. Hurst v. Capitell, 539 So.2d 264, 266 (Ala.1989) ("[t]o leave children who are victims of such wrongful, intentional, heinous acts without a right to redress those wrongs in a c......
-
Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 98-362.
...the parent-child immunity doctrine is absent, and there is no reason to extend the doctrine's protection to such acts"); Hurst v. Capitell, 539 So.2d 264 (Ala.1989) ("To leave children who are victims of such wrongful, intentional, heinous acts without a right to redress those wrongs in a c......
-
Calhoun v. Eagan
...or a wanton and malicious wrong. Our conclusion also coincides with the reasoning of the Alabama Supreme Court in Hurst v. Capitell, 539 So.2d 264, 266 (Ala.1989), a case involving a parent's assistance of sexual abuse of a child: "To leave children who are victims of such wrongful, intenti......
-
Herzfeld v. Herzfeld
...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 som......