Court: Supreme Court of New Jersey; July 10, 1970; New Jersey; State Supreme Court
The Court, through Proctor, J., addressed the issue of intrafamily tort immunity in an appeal stemming from a fatal automobile accident on October 16, 1967, involving Carroll E. Prance, Jr.'s vehicle and a tractor-trailer operated by A. P. A. Transport Corp. The accident resulted in the death of Prance's wife, who was a passenger with their two unemancipated children. Two legal actions ensued: one for personal injuries and property damage brought by Prance and his children, and another for wrongful death filed by Prance as the administrator of his wife’s estate. The defendants counterclaimed for contribution against Prance, which he sought to dismiss based on intrafamily immunity. The trial court denied his motion, and the Appellate Division denied an appeal.
The appeal's focus included the validity of both interspousal and parent-child tort immunity. Citing the recent decision in Immer v. Risko, the Court indicated that absent minor children, the defendants could pursue their counterclaim under the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Law. However, since minor children were involved, the counterclaim was barred by the doctrine of parent-child immunity, established in the 1891 case Hewlett v. George, which prevented minors from suing parents for personal injuries, supported by subsequent cases like McKelvey v. McKelvey and Roller v. Roller. This principle was adopted in New Jersey through the 1935 case Reingold v. Reingold, which similarly precluded a child from recovering damages from a parent in a related context.
The immunity doctrine aims to preserve family relationships, distinguishing it from interspousal immunity, as there are no statutory prohibitions on suits between parents and children. The court's focus on appeal is whether to uphold the principles established in Reingold and subsequent cases (Hastings, Heyman, Franco). Recent rulings have been split among justices, with critics highlighting that the doctrine has numerous exceptions, leading to inconsistent outcomes. Courts permit contract and property actions between minors and parents and do not recognize immunity for claims involving grandparents or when a child seeks to sue a parent’s estate. Various rationales for maintaining parental immunity in negligence cases include concerns about depleting family finances, encouraging fraud, and disrupting family harmony. While historically rooted in family preservation, recent arguments emphasize the potential for collusion and fraud. The doctrine now mirrors interspousal immunity, and the prevalence of liability insurance reduces concerns about financial strain from lawsuits. Disagreement among justices primarily revolves around the risk of collusion against insurance carriers. Despite potential for fraudulent claims, the court argues that barring all claims is too severe a consequence compared to allowing valid claims to proceed.
Judicial reluctance to hear certain claims solely due to potential venality is challenged, referencing Cohen v. Kaminetsky. The document notes a lesser number of states that have abandoned the parent-child immunity doctrine compared to interspousal immunity, with Prosser suggesting this disparity is due to the absence of legislative changes like the Married Women’s Acts. However, a minority of jurisdictions have started to reject this immunity, particularly in motor vehicle negligence cases, citing several recent cases that have overruled prior decisions. Academic consensus largely condemns the parent-child immunity doctrine, yet the decision to abrogate it in this state is not solely based on the number of jurisdictions or scholarly critiques. The ruling specifically allows lawsuits between unemancipated children and parents for injuries from negligent vehicle operation, while acknowledging that certain parental authority issues may remain outside judicial reach. The document concludes that the defendants' counterclaim for contribution is valid, and while there are no claims against the plaintiff for the children’s injuries, the defendants may amend their counterclaim if necessary. Thus, the focus remains on the issue of parent-child tort immunity.
