Meehan v. Meehan, 2489
| Decision Date | 01 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 2489,2489 |
| Citation | 133 So.2d 776 |
| Parties | C. Edward MEEHAN, Sr., the natural father of James Meehan, Deceased, a minor, Appellant, v. C. Edward MEEHAN, III, James P. Haley and A. J. Ritchie, Appellees. . Second District |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Joe C. Elliott, of Minnet, Allsworth, Doumar, Schuler & Elliott, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Fred C. Davant, of Wicker, Smith, Blomqvist, Hinckley & Davant, Miami, for appellees.
Appellant, plaintiff below, seeks reversal of a summary final judgment entered in favor of appellees, defendants below, in a wrongful death action, brought under Sec. 768.03, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
This appeal involves litigation between a father and his son, in which the plaintiff-father sued the son, a minor, and others, for the wrongful death of another minor son. The specific act of negligence was that the defendant, C. Edward Meehan, III, negligently failed to inform or otherwise instruct the said minor decedent, a son of plaintiff, of the defective condition of the electrical buffing machine, which the said C. Edward Meehan, III, requested the decedent, James Meehan, to use; that he failed to disclose to the said minor, James Meehan, that the said C. Edward Meehan, III, had suffered an electric shock from the defective electrical wiring (power cord) of the said electric buffing machine, on one or more occasions. James Meehan was electrocuted while using the aforementioned machine.
The answer of defendants sets out, among other things, that C. Edward Meehan, Sr., plaintiff, is the natural father, not only of the decedent, James Meehan, but also of the defendant, C. Edward Meehan, III, who was a minor unemancipated child at the time of the occurrence. Following a pretrial conference on defendants' motion, a summary judgment was entered against the plaintiff. On this appeal the plaintiff has set out two points: 1) Whether or not a rule of law exists which bars an action by a parent against a minor unemancipated child for a negligent tort; and 2) Whether or not the evidence for the plaintiff establishes that the defendant, C. Edward Meehan, III, was an emancipated minor child.
On the first question, neither of the parties has cited us a Florida case. The plaintiff, in his brief, advises us that prior to 1891 there were only three cases that dealt with the issue of whether or not a tort action could be maintained between parent and child. In one of those cases. Hewellette v. George, 1891, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885, 13 L.R.A. 682, it was held a suit would not lie and the decision was grounded on public policy. The plaintiff's view of the entire situation is that it is not a matter of common law and hence Florida could rule in favor of liability without doing an injury to the common law. But, as we see it, the question involved here is one of public policy and should be decided on that ground. The view of the majority of states is that a parent or his representative cannot maintain an action in tort against an unemancipated minor child, and the reason advanced for such rule is the necessity for the encouragement of family unity and the maintenance of family discipline.
The general rule is laid down in 67 C.J.S. Parent and Child § 61, pp. 785, 786, under Parent and Child, where it is stated:
'While there is some authority to the contrary, according to the rule usually recognized a parent may not maintain an action against his or her unemancipated minor child to recover for personal injuries caused by the negligence of such child. * * *'
The general rule is also discussed in 60 A.L.R.2d 1284, the author saying at p. 1286:
'Although there is authority to the contrary, the view accepted by the overwhelming majority of the courts is that a parent or his representative may not maintain an action in tort against an unemancipated child, at least in the absence of a statute otherwise giving such right.'
In 5, Blashfield, Cyclopedia of Automobile Law and Practice, Sec. 2885, p. 13, it is stated:
'The converse of the rule laid down in the preceding section is also true; that is, that in the absence of statute a parent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mauk v. Mauk
...v. Shaker (1942), 129 Conn. 518, 524, 29 A.2d 765; Wright v. Farmers' Reliance Ins. Co. (Fla.App.1975), 314 So.2d 641; Meehan v. Meehan (Fla.App.1961), 133 So.2d 776, 777; Harlan Natl. Bank v. Gross (Ky.1961), 346 S.W.2d 482; Thompson v. Thompson (Ky.1954), 264 S.W.2d 667, 668; Latz v. Latz......
-
Herzfeld v. Herzfeld, 98-362.
...was the first Florida court to recognize parent-child immunity. See Richard v. Richard, 203 So.2d 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967); Meehan v. Meehan, 133 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961). The doctrine was not recognized by the Florida Supreme Court until 1970. See Orefice v. Albert, 237 So.2d 142 (Fla. 197......
-
Herzfeld v. Herzfeld
...LAW It appears that the parent-child immunity doctrine was first discussed in a Florida appellate opinion in 1961. In Meehan v. Meehan, 133 So.2d 776 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), a father sued his minor son for the wrongful death of another one of his minor sons. While observing that no other Florid......
-
Pierce v. Helz
...27, a Florida Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint on the basis of family immunity on the authority of Meehan v. Meehan, 133 So.2d 776 (Fla.App.) and Rickard v. Rickard, 203 So.2d 7 (Fla.App.), noting that it was in nowise persuaded that Florida's rule of parental immunity ......