Matarese v. Matarese
| Citation | 131 A. 198 |
| Decision Date | 16 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 6036.,6036. |
| Parties | MATARESE v. MATARESE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Exceptions from Superior Court, Washington County; Arthur P. Sumner, Judge.
Action by Lola Matarese, pro ami, against Amiello Matarese. Verdict was directed for defendant, and plaintiff brings exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted for entry of judgment on verdict as directed.
Benjamin W. Grim, of Providence, for plaintiff.
Henshaw & Sweeney, Benjamin F. Lindemuth and John W. Baker, all of Providence, for defendant.
This is an action of trespass on the case for negligence to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been suffered by the plaintiff by reason of the defendant's negligence in the operation of an automobile. The case was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting with a jury. At the close of the evidence the justice directed the jury to return a verdict for the defendant. The case is before us upon the plaintiff's exception to that direction of the justice.
From the transcript of evidence it appears that the defendant is the father of the plaintiff. At the time of the injury complained of the plaintiff was about five years old, and was a member of her father's household. Just before her injury she was playing on the sidewalk near her home and the defendant was approaching her driving an automobile. The defendant, at the request of the plaintiff, stopped, and then either invited or permitted the plaintiff to sit upon the running board of the machine to ride to their home. While she was in that position the defendant started the machine forward, the plaintiff was thrown to the ground, a rear wheel of the automobile passed over her leg, fracturing the bone and seriously injuring her. The justice directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff could not maintain an action of this nature against her father.
Immemorially the family has been an important element of our civil society, one of the supports upon which our civilization has developed. Save as modified by the Legislature, in domestic affairs the family has remained in law a self-governing entity, under the discipline and direction of the father as its head. As part of the family order or arrangement are the related obligations and rights of the father and his minor child while the child remains in his household unemancipated. On the part of the father is the right and duty to control, protect, support, and to guide or educate the child. The reciprocal duty of the child is to serve and obey the father. These fundamental principles are traceable to ancient customs and usages, and are fixed by tradition and evidenced by the decisions of the courts. Anything that brings the child into conflict with the father or diminishes the father's authority or hampers him in its exercise is repugnant to the family establishment, and is not to be contenanced save upon positive provisions of the statute law. Any proceeding tending to bring discord into the family and disorganize its government may well be regarded as contrary to the common law, and not to be sanctioned by the courts. Such conflict would arise by recognizing the right of a minor child to bring his personal action against the father to recover damages for torts alleged to have been committed by the father in the course of the family relation, and resulting in personal injury to the child. The state by criminal proceedings will punish the father for the gross abuse of his power of control and discipline resulting in injury. For his continued abuse or neglect, indicating that the restraint arising from parental affection has failed, the state will remove the child from the father's control. It is, however, inconsistent with the family relation, while it exists, to permit the maintenance of such an action as that at bar of a minor child against his father to recover damages for the alleged negligence of the father.
During the long and intimate family relation of a parent and his minor child, living in the household of the parent, it is extremely likely that circumstances may arise resulting in some injury to the child, which injury may be imputed to the negligence of the father because of the condition of the family dwelling, or the act of the parent himself or that of his servant or agent. To permit each of such acts of real or alleged negligence to be the basis of an action for damages against the father during the child's minority or upon his majority or against the father's estate upon the latter's death would destroy the harmony of the family and militate against...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downs v. Poulin
...v. Oliveria, 305 Mass. 297, 298, 25 N.E.2d 766; Norfolk Southern Railroad Co. v. Gretakis, 162 Va. 597, 174 S.E. 841; Matarese v. Matarese, 47 R.I. 131, 131 A. 198; Castellucci v. Castellucci, 188 A.2d 467 (R.I.); Sorrentino v. Sorrentino, 248 N.Y. 626, 162 N.E. 551; Cannon v. Cannon, 287 N......
-
Barlow v. Iblings
...unit and that the head of the family enjoys sort of a primitive sovereign immunity is advanced in Matarese v. Matarese, 47 R.I. 131, 131 A. 198, 42 A.L.R. 1360. It is often stated that in Roman law and in the early common law the family was regarded a unit of government. Although this may b......
-
Frye v. Frye
...Roller v. Roller, 37 Wash. 242, 79 P. 788 (1905) (father raped his 15-year-old daughter and was convicted of the crime); Matarese v. Matarese, 47 R.I. 131, Shortly before our decision in Schneider, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire repudiated the absolute rule of Hewlett with respect to wi......
-
Calhoun v. Eagan
...majority for assault committed during minority not permitted), disapproved in Barnes v. Barnes, 603 N.E.2d 1337 (Ind.1992); Matarese v. Matarese, 47 R.I. 131, In 1930, the Court of Appeals joined these jurisdictions in its decision in Schneider v. Schneider, supra, 160 Md. at 19, 152 A. 498......