McManus v. Hinney
| Decision Date | 07 June 1966 |
| Citation | 143 N.W.2d 1,31 Wis.2d 333 |
| Parties | Jack McMANUS, gdn. ad litem for Thomas Ponce, et al., Respondents, v. Fred W. HINNEY et al., Defendants, Iowa National Mutual Ins. Co., an Iowa corporation, Appellant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Robert G. Hartman, Juneau, W. Scott Van Alstyne, Jr., Madison, for counsel, for appellant.
Jack McManus, Madison, for respondents.
Two problems are presented by this appeal. First, we must determine whether the former parental immunity rule (now abolished) applied not only to natural parents but also to persons standing in loco parentis to minor children. Secondly, we must decide whether the record in the present case adequately establishes that the driver, Joseph LaCaria, was in loco parentis with reference to the minor plaintiffs.
Application of Immunity Rule to Persons In Loco Parentis.
The parental immunity rule was abolished prospectively in Wisconsin by Goller v. White (1963), 20 Wis.2d 402, 414, 122 N.W.2d 193. The protection afforded by parental immunity would not apply to causes of action which arose after June 28, 1963. The cause of action in the instant case arose from an accident occurring on January 20, 1963, at a time when the parental immunity rule was still operative.
Since Joseph LaCaria was not a natural parent of the injured children, we are asked to decide whether the former immunity rule protected one who was in loco parentis. Goller v. White, supra, not only ended parental immunity but also was determinative of this question.
In Goller a child sued his foster parent, a person who was treated by the court as one in loco parentis. A reading of the Goller decision makes it clear that this court deemed that under prior law a foster parent was entitled to the immunity. Indeed, this court, at page 408, quoted with approval from the opinion of the trial judge, wherein it was stated that a foster parent stood in loco parentis and that 'it is not necessary that one be a blood relative in order to be a member of a family.' Thus, the Goller decision clearly recognized that the former parental immunity rule did apply to one who stood in loco parentis.
The foregoing conclusion is further buttressed by the fact that in a concurring opinion in Goller Mr. Chief Justice Brown opposed the application of immunity with regard to persons who were not natural parents. He stated:
However, no other member of the court joined in that concurrence, and the distinction thereby made serves to clarify the question now before the court.
We believe it is clear that the parental immunity rule (prior to its abrogation) did in fact apply to a person who stood in loco parentis to an unemancipated minor.
On this appeal we do not have a transcript of the testimony. In lieu thereof,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gritzner v. Michael R.
...530 (1987)(considering whether the word "parent" in Wis. Stat. § 767.245 includes persons standing in loco parentis); McManus v. Hinney, 31 Wis. 2d 333, 143 N.W.2d 1 (1966); In Interest of L.L. v. Circuit Ct. of Washington County, 90 Wis. 2d 585, 596, 280 N.W.2d 343 (Ct. App. 1979)(describi......
-
State v. Sherman
...and obligations of a natural parent. Gritzner v. Michael R., 235 Wis.2d 781, 611 N.W.2d 906, 919-20 (2000) (quoting McManus v. Hinney, 31 Wis.2d 333, 143 N.W.2d 1 (1966)). To repeat, the only relevant undisputed facts in this case were that the Defendant was not the biological parent of Jes......
-
Fuerst v. Fuerst
...home maintained by her second husband. (Footnote omitted.) Turer, 27 Wis.2d at 201-202, 133 N.W.2d at 768. In McManus v. Hinney, 31 Wis.2d 333, 337-38, 143 N.W.2d 1, 3 (1966), the court stated that the significant factor in determining whether a stepparent stands In loco parentis to a minor......
- Banach v. City of Milwaukee