Oliveria v. Oliveria

Decision Date29 February 1940
PartiesOLIVERIA v. OLIVERIA (two cases).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

305 Mass. 297
25 N.E.2d 766

OLIVERIA
v.
OLIVERIA (two cases).

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

Feb. 29, 1940.


Exceptions from Superior Court, Bristol County; Hurley, Judge.

Actions by Margaret Oliveria, and by Margaret Oliveria, administratrix, against Louis Oliveria, for personal injuries and the death of plaintiff's intestate in an automobile accident. Verdicts for plaintiffs in the sums of $940 and $1,000 respectively. On plaintiff's exceptions, in each action, to the entry of a verdict for defendant in accordance with leave reserved, after the jury had returned a verdict for plaintiff.

Exceptions overruled in the first action and sustained in the second action.

[25 N.E.2d 767]

H. W. Radovsky, of Fall River, for plaintiff.

F. E. Smith and W. J. Fenton, both of Taunton, for defendant.


QUA, Justice.

The first action is for personal injury to the plaintiff. The second action is for the death of the plaintiff's intestate, Manuel Oliveria, who was the husband of the plaintiff. The defendant is the son of the plaintiff and of the deceased. In each action the only exception is to the entry of a verdict for the defendant in accordance with leave reserved, after the jury had returned a verdict for the plaintiff.

Both actions arise out of an accident which occurred in Swansea, apparently in the early morning of September 2, 1935, when an automobile which was driven by the defendant, and in which the plaintiff, the deceased, and two other persons were passengers, ran off the road and struck a pole. See Carvalho v. Oliveria, Mass., 25 N.E.2d 764. In the first action the plaintiff alleges gross negligence of the defendant in the operation of the automobile. In the second action she alleges negligence of the defendant in the operation of the automobile. At the time of the accident the defendant was a minor nineteen years old, unmarried, and living with his father and mother in Fall River. He was working, but there was no evidence that he did not turn over his wages to his father or mother. After the accident he continued to live with his mother until the time of the trial. There was evidence that the accident was caused by careless driving of the defendant. No contention has been made to the contrary. It is not contended that the plaintiff or her intestate was guilty of contributory negligence.

The first case presents the question whether a parent may maintain an action against his or her unemancipated minor child, who is living in his or her family, for personal injuries caused by negligence. In Luster v. Luster, Mass., 13 N.E.2d 438, we held that under similar circumstances public policy prevented recovery by the child against the parent. Not all of the particular reasons given for our former opinion apply conversely to the case now before us. But in our view the fundamental objection that it is contrary to the best interests of society that the innumerable intimate contracts between parent and child in the life of the family should become the subject of actions for negligence remains in full force. Desirable as it is that the law should develop logically and symmetrically, it is still more important that it should be suited to the manner of life and habits of thought of the great mass of people whom it is to govern. In our opinion it is repugnant to the prevailing sense of propriety that a mother should bring an action at law against her own minor child, perhaps of tender years, for some act of carelessness in the course of family life which it might seem that the child had the capacity to foresee and to prevent. As the law must operate through general rules, and as twenty-one years is the established age at which parental authority and the common law duties of support and obedience cease, we can find no sufficient reason for introducing difficult distinctions based upon the age of the minor. Such an action as this was unknown here until the recent extension of liability insurance held out the hope that occurrences...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT