Special Relationships

Question 1

Types of relationships that can generate immunity

Answer 1

1. Government
2. Spousal on the way out since we no longer view wives as their husband’s property and the places that still have it are riddled with exemptions
3. Parent/child also on the way out for public policy reasons

Insurance policies still have exceptions for parental immunity

Question 2

Broadbent v. Broadbend

Major topical rule

Answer 2

Rejected the Goller test and instead implemented a reasonable parent standard of care as to prevent giving parents “carte blanche” to act negligently toward the child

Parent/Child

Question 3

Bonte v. Bonte

Answer 3

A fetus born alive has standing to sue the mother for injuries that occurred because of her negligence during pregnancy

One view countered by Remy v. MacDonald

Parent/Child

Question 4

Lawsuits against parents generate payouts when…

Answer 4

There is no parental immunity found based on the situation

Parent/Child

Question 5

Insurance companies do not have to pay in child suits aginst parents when…

Answer 5

The court finds parental immunity does exist in this situation

Parent/Child

Question 6

Goller v. White

Rule

Answer 6

A child is generally allowed to sue their parents for contract or property actions

Old test that states either have many adjustments or outright rejected i

Parent/Child

Question 7

Remy v. MacDonald

Answer 7

The court found a mother did not due a duty of care to her fetus and rejected Bonte instead found that the policy implications where too undesirable and therefore suit could not occur for injuries occurred until after birth

One view countered in Bonte v. Bonte

Parent/Child

Question 8

Ard v. Ard

Answer 8

Allowed interfamily suit damages up to the limit of insurance coverage

Question 9

Renko v. McLean

Answer 9

The parent-child immunity doctrine disallows suits between children and parents for torts occurring during the child’s minority.

Question 10

Allstate Insurance Co. v. Kim

Question 11

Three cases that developed parental immunity

Answer 11

Hewellette v. George; McKelvey v. McKelvey; Roller v. Roller

Parent/Child

Question 12

Hewellette v George

Answer 12

A child could not sue her parent for being falsely held in an asylum because of parental immunity

Foundational case for parental immunity

Parent/Child

Question 13

McKelvey v. McKelvey

Answer 13

A minor could not sue per father for cruel and inhuman treatment afflicted by her stepmother with the consent of the father

Foundational case for parental immunity

Parent/Child

Question 14

Roller v. Roller

Answer 14

A minor child could not sue her father for rape even though he had been convicted of the criminal offense

Foundational case for parental immunity

Parent/Child

Question 15

Holodook v. Spencer

Answer 15

Because of the many different economic, cultural and religious differences within American family parents should have the right to determine how much “independence, supervision, and control a child should have” and to control the development of their child

Parent/Child

Question 16

General exceptions to parental immunity

Answer 16

1. Parent is action outside his parental role and within the scope of employment
2. If the paren acts willfully, wantonly, or recklessly
3. If the child is emancipated
4. If the child or parent dies
5. If a third party is liable for the tort the protection of the parent does not transfer
6. If the tortfeasor is standing in loco parentis (as if they were a parent)

Not all states have all exceptions

Parent/Child

Question 17

Schleier v. Alter

Answer 17

A parent had a duty to “the world at large” rather than just the child in protecting others from a family dog known to bite and therefore could be held liable.

Duty at large=liability

Parent/Child

Question 18

Glaskox v. Glaskox

Answer 18

Created an exception where a minor could sue when they were injured by the parent’s negligence which lead to a car accident

Question 19

Streenz v. Streenz

Answer 19

Parents are liable for the Goller standard except: where the alleged negligent act involved the exclusive parental authority over the child OR where the alleged negligent act involved **the ordinary parental distraction **with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care

Parent/Child

Question 20

Sandbak v. Sandbak

Answer 20

Parental immunity protected parents from suit when their child wandered into the neighbor’s property where they were attacked by a dog because the did not owe a duty to the world, just to the child

Becuase the neighbor owed a duty to the world to protect from the dog

Parent/Child

Question 20

Sandbak v. Sandbak

Answer 20

Parental immunity protected parents from suit when their child wandered into the neighbor’s property where they were attacked by a dog because the did not owe a duty to the world, just to the child

Becuase the neighbor owed a duty to the world to protect from the dog

Parent/Child

Question 21

Kawananakoa v. Polyblank

Answer 21

Sovereign immunity exists in America because of the logical issue that “there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends”

Governmental Immunity

Question 22

Riss v. City of New York

Major topical rule

Answer 22

Absent legislation creating liability, a municipality is not liable in tort for a government service’s failure to protect the public from criminal activity.

Governmental Immunity

Question 23

Schuster v. City of New York

Answer 23

Unless the policy take the affirmative action of beginning to protect someone, they have no duty to do so

Governmental Immunity

Question 24

Special relationships … create a duty.

Answer 24

can automatically

Question 25

Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District

Major topical rule

Answer 25

In general, a person is not liable to another for nondisclosure or a failure to act, absent a special relationship between the parties.

Question 26

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 311

Answer 26

CONSCIOUS MISREPRESENTATION INVOLVING RISK OF PHYSICAL HARM
1. One who negligently gives false information to another is subject to liability for physical harm caused by action taken by the other in reasonable reliance upon such information, where such harm results
(a) to the other, or
(b) to such third persons as the actor should expect to be put in peril by the action taken.
2. Such negligence may consist of failure to exercise reasonable care
(a) in ascertaining the accuracy of the information, or
(b) in the manner in which it is communicated.

Question 27

Mixon v. Dobbs Houses Inc.

Major topical rule

Answer 27

If you make a promise to someone outside your duty, you take on the responsibility to perform that promise.

Creation of duty by

Question 28

Jurisdictions of Parent/Child Liability

Answer 28

1. Goller standard
2. Reasonable parent
3. “pulpably” unreasonable
4. totally immunity common law standard
5. complete immunity unless intentional, willful, or similiarly bad

Parent/Child