Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
14 West Virginia opinions name it 1 courts 1968–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by West Virginia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Lee v. Comergreen2 sentences2013See Syl. pt. 9, Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W.Va. 597 , 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991) ("Parental immunity is abrogated where the parent causes injury or death to his or her child from intentional or wilful conduct, but liability does not arise from reasonable corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes.”). .See Syl. pt. 2, Lee v. Comer, 159 W.Va. 585 , 224 S.E.2d 721 (1976) ("An unemancipated minor may maintain an action against his parent for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of said parent and to that extent the parental immunity doctrine is abrogated i 2013See Syl. pt. 9, Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W.Va. 597 , 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991) ("Parental immunity is abrogated where the parent causes injury or death to his or her child from intentional or wilful conduct, but liability does not arise from reasonable corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes.”). .See Syl. pt. 2, Lee v. Comer, 159 W.Va. 585 , 224 S.E.2d 721 (1976) ("An unemancipated minor may maintain an action against his parent for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of said parent and to that extent the parental immunity doctrine is abrogated i | 4 | 9 |
Courtney v. Courtneygreen2 sentences2013See Syl. pt. 9, Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W.Va. 597 , 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991) ("Parental immunity is abrogated where the parent causes injury or death to his or her child from intentional or wilful conduct, but liability does not arise from reasonable corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes.”). .See Syl. pt. 2, Lee v. Comer, 159 W.Va. 585 , 224 S.E.2d 721 (1976) ("An unemancipated minor may maintain an action against his parent for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of said parent and to that extent the parental immunity doctrine is abrogated i 2013See Syl. pt. 9, Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W.Va. 597 , 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991) ("Parental immunity is abrogated where the parent causes injury or death to his or her child from intentional or wilful conduct, but liability does not arise from reasonable corporal punishment for disciplinary purposes.”). .See Syl. pt. 2, Lee v. Comer, 159 W.Va. 585 , 224 S.E.2d 721 (1976) ("An unemancipated minor may maintain an action against his parent for personal injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident caused by the negligence of said parent and to that extent the parental immunity doctrine is abrogated i | 3 | 4 |
Cole v. Fairchildgreen2 sentences2013Finally, in Cole v. Fairchild, 198 W.Va. 736 , 482 S.E.2d 913 (1996), the Court considered the application of the parental immunity doctrine to the defense of contributory or comparative negligence of a parent asserted in a wrongful death action. 2013Finally, in Cole v. Fairchild, 198 W.Va. 736 , 482 S.E.2d 913 (1996), the Court considered the application of the parental immunity doctrine to the defense of contributory or comparative negligence of a parent asserted in a wrongful death action. | 3 | 3 |
Hewlett v. Georgered2 sentences2013In Hewellette, the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that the parental immunity doctrine would “preserve the peace of society” and was based on “sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society[.]” Id. 9 So. at 887. 6 Following Hewellette, McKelvey, and Roller, there was widespread adoption of the parental immunity doctrine by courts throughout the country. 2013In Hewellette, the Mississippi Supreme Court determined that the parental immunity doctrine would “preserve the peace of society” and was based on “sound public policy, designed to subserve the repose of families and the best interests of society[.]” Id. 9 So. at 887. 6 Following Hewellette, McKelvey, and Roller, there was widespread adoption of the parental immunity doctrine by courts throughout the country. | 2 | 3 |
Lusk v. Luskgreen2 sentences2013Although not the prevailing view, the majority nonetheless potentially could have recognized an exception to the parental immunity doctrine to permit an infant plaintiff to assert a claim against his parents for injuries for which there is available homeowners insurance coverage as a logical, but limited, extension of our prior holdings in Syllabus point 2 of Lee v. Comer, 159 W.Va. 585 , 224 S.E.2d 721 , and Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17 , 166 S.E. 538 . 2013Although not the prevailing view, the majority nonetheless potentially could have recognized an exception to the parental immunity doctrine to permit an infant plaintiff to assert a claim against his parents for injuries for which there is available homeowners insurance coverage as a logical, but limited, extension of our prior holdings in Syllabus point 2 of Lee v. Comer, 159 W.Va. 585 , 224 S.E.2d 721 , and Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17 , 166 S.E. 538 . | 2 | 3 |
Bower v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.green2 sentences2013Corp., 206 W.Va. 133 , 522 S.E.2d 424 (1999) (“This Court undertakes plenary review of legal issues presented by certified question from a federal district or appellate court.”). 2013Corp., 206 W.Va. 133 , 522 S.E.2d 424 (1999) (“This Court undertakes plenary review of legal issues presented by certified question from a federal district or appellate court.”). | 2 | 2 |
Sydenstricker v. Mohangreen2 sentences2013Intervening Cause The final reformulated certified question we consider is as follows, in a product liability action brought for injury to a child, does the parental immunity doctrine preclude a defendant from asserting, as a defense, that the conduct of a parent was an intervening cause of the child’s injuries? 16 This Court discussed intervening cause in Sydenstricker v. Mohan, 217 W.Va. 552 , 618 S.E.2d 561 (2005), stating: Our law recognizes that an intervening cause, in order to relieve a person charged with negligence in connection with an injury, must be a negligent act, or omission, wh 2013Intervening Cause The final reformulated certified question we consider is as follows, in a product liability action brought for injury to a child, does the parental immunity doctrine preclude a defendant from asserting, as a defense, that the conduct of a parent was an intervening cause of the child’s injuries? 16 This Court discussed intervening cause in Sydenstricker v. Mohan, 217 W.Va. 552 , 618 S.E.2d 561 (2005), stating: Our law recognizes that an intervening cause, in order to relieve a person charged with negligence in connection with an injury, must be a negligent act, or omission, wh | 2 | 2 |
Morningstar v. Black & Decker Manufacturing Co.green2 sentences2013Co., 162 W.Va. 857, 889 , 253 S.E.2d 666, 683 (1979). 2013Co., 162 W.Va. 857, 889 , 253 S.E.2d 666, 683 (1979). | 2 | 2 |
Sepaugh v. LaGronegreen2 sentences2013See Verdier v. Verdier, 364 Ark. 287, 291 , 219 S.W.3d 143, 145 (2005) ("Broadening the exception to the parental-immunity doctrine to cases where a parent is covered by liability insurance through an existing homeowner’s policy leads to a dangerous slippery slope.”); Sepaugh v. LaGrone, 300 S.W.3d 328, 338 (Tex.App.2009) (rejecting exception to parental immunity doctrine based upon existence of applicable homeowners insurance as contrary to Texas law). 2013See generally Neel v. Sewell, 834 8 (...continued) (“Broadening the exception to the parental-immunity doctrine to cases where a parent is covered by liability insurance through an existing homeowner’s policy leads to a dangerous slippery slope.”); Sepaugh v. LaGrone, 300 S.W.3d 328, 338 (Tex. App. 2009) (rejecting exception to parental immunity doctrine based upon existence of applicable homeowners insurance as contrary to Texas law). | 2 | 2 |
Board of Education v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc.green2 sentences2013“In Haynes . . . we extended a right of contribution to a tortfeasor to bring in as a third-party defendant a fellow joint tortfeasor to share by way of contribution on the verdict recovered by the plaintiff.” Syllabus Point 5, Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Prods., Inc., 169 W.Va. 440 , 288 S.E.2d 511 (1982).10 The Court discussed the purpose of contribution in Board of Education of McDowell County. v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 182 W.Va. 597, 603-04 , 390 S.E.2d 796, 802-03 (1990) (“Zando”), stating: The fundamental purpose of inchoate contribution is to enable all parties who have contribut 2013“In Haynes . . . we extended a right of contribution to a tortfeasor to bring in as a third-party defendant a fellow joint tortfeasor to share by way of contribution on the verdict recovered by the plaintiff.” Syllabus Point 5, Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Prods., Inc., 169 W.Va. 440 , 288 S.E.2d 511 (1982).10 The Court discussed the purpose of contribution in Board of Education of McDowell County. v. Zando, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 182 W.Va. 597, 603-04 , 390 S.E.2d 796, 802-03 (1990) (“Zando”), stating: The fundamental purpose of inchoate contribution is to enable all parties who have contribut | 2 | 2 |
Howell v. Luckeygreen2 sentences2013The plaintiffs contend that the parental immunity doctrine prevents the defendants from seeking contribution because the right to seek contribution “is derivative in the sense that it may be brought by a joint tortfeasor on any theory of liability that could have 10 Prior to Haynes, “it was believed that contribution was only available after a joint judgment against joint tortfeasors.” Howell v. Luckey, 205 W.Va. 445, 448 , 518 S.E.2d 873, 876 (1999). 2013The plaintiffs contend that the parental immunity doctrine prevents the defendants from seeking contribution because the right to seek contribution “is derivative in the sense that it may be brought by a joint tortfeasor on any theory of liability that could have 10 Prior to Haynes, “it was believed that contribution was only available after a joint judgment against joint tortfeasors.” Howell v. Luckey, 205 W.Va. 445, 448 , 518 S.E.2d 873, 876 (1999). | 2 | 2 |
Dunn v. Kanawha County Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2013Contribution The first certified question we address is as follows, in a product liability action brought for injury to a child, does the parental immunity doctrine preclude a defendant from asserting a contribution claim against the parents of the child? 9 “Contribution is the right of one who owes a joint obligation to call upon his fellow obligors to reimburse him if compelled to pay-more than his proportionate share[.]” Dunn v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., 194 W.Va. 40, 44 , 459 S.E.2d 151, 155 (1995). 2013Contribution The first certified question we address is as follows, in a product liability action brought for injury to a child, does the parental immunity doctrine preclude a defendant from asserting a contribution claim against the parents of the child? 9 “Contribution is the right of one who owes a joint obligation to call upon his fellow obligors to reimburse him if compelled to pay-more than his proportionate share[.]” Dunn v. Kanawha County Bd. of Educ., 194 W.Va. 40, 44 , 459 S.E.2d 151, 155 (1995). | 2 | 2 |
In re Shaungreen2 sentences2013Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. 4 A. The Limited Exceptions to the Parental Immunity Doctrine Do Not Apply to the Facts of this Case “The filial bond is one of the strongest, yet most delicate, and most inviolable of all relationships[.]” In re Shaun Christopher M., 508 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772 , 124 A.D.2d 1025, 1025 (1986) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 2013Accordingly, I dissent from the majority’s decision in this case. 4 A. The Limited Exceptions to the Parental Immunity Doctrine Do Not Apply to the Facts of this Case “The filial bond is one of the strongest, yet most delicate, and most inviolable of all relationships[.]” In re Shaun Christopher M., 508 N.Y.S.2d 771, 772 , 124 A.D.2d 1025, 1025 (1986) (internal quotations and citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Kimberly Landis and Alva Nelson v. Hearthmark, LLCgreen1 sentence2020Pt. 4, id. (“In a product liability action brought for injury to a child, the parental immunity doctrine does not preclude a defendant from asserting, as a defense, that the conduct of a parent was an intervening cause of the child’s injuries.”). | 1 | 1 |
| Verdier v. Verdiergreen | 1 | 1 |
PULLER (Et Al.) v. Pullergreen2 sentences2013The defendants cite Puller v. Puller, 380 Pa. 219, 221 , 110 A.2d 175, 177 (1955), in which the court stated that “contribution is not a recovery for the tort but the enforcement of an equitable duty to share in the liability for the wrong done.” Further, the defendants state that permitting contribution will ensure that those who have contributed to the plaintiffs damages share in that í’esponsibility. 2013The defendants cite Puller v. Puller, 380 Pa. 219, 221 , 110 A.2d 175, 177 (1955), in which the court stated that “contribution is not a recovery for the tort but the enforcement of an equitable duty to share in the liability for the wrong done.” Further, the defendants state that permitting contribution will ensure that those who have contributed to the plaintiffs damages share in that í’esponsibility. | 1 | 1 |
| Coffindaffer v. Coffindaffergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Emery v. Emerygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in West Virginia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Paris Ex Rel. Paris v. Dance
yellow
2 sentences2013Paris v. Dance, 194 P.3d 404 (Colo.App.2008), in which a Colo rado court concluded that a parent could be designated as a nonparty for the allocation of fault, even though the parental immunity doctrine would still bar recovery of damages allocated to the parent. 2013Paris v. Dance, 194 P.3d 404 (Colo. App. 2008), in which a Colorado court concluded that a parent could be designated as a nonparty for the allocation of fault, even though the parental immunity doctrine would still bar recovery of damages allocated to the parent. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Crotta v. Home Depot, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013In Crotta v. Home Depot, Inc., 249 Conn. 634 , 732 A.2d 767 (1999), the United States District Court of Connecticut submitted a certified question to the Connecticut Supreme Court asking whether the parental immunity doctrine precludes the parent of a minor child from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of contribution. 2013In Crotta v. Home Depot, Inc., 249 Conn. 634 , 732 A.2d 767 (1999), the United States District Court of Connecticut submitted a certified question to the Connecticut Supreme Court asking whether the parental immunity doctrine precludes the parent of a minor child from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of contribution. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Hoffman v. Tracy
green
2 sentences2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule . . . lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 7 (...continued) (eradicated rule except in instances of reasonable exercise of parental authority or exercise of parental discretion); Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181 , 1 2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule . . . lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 7 (...continued) (eradicated rule except in instances of reasonable exercise of parental authority or exercise of parental discretion); Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181 , 1 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Hartigan v. Beery
green
2 sentences2013While the defendants acknowledge that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Crotta supports the plaintiffs’ position, the defendants cite the following cases that support their position: Hartigan v. Beery, 128 Ill.App.3d 195 , 83 Ill.Dec. 445 , 470 N.E.2d 571 (1984); Chinos Villas, Inc. v. Bemudez, 448 So.2d 1179 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1984); and Bishop v. Nielsen, 632 P.2d 864 (Utah 1981). . 2013While the defendants acknowledge that the Connecticut Supreme Court’s ruling in Crotta supports the plaintiffs’ position, the defendants cite the following cases that support their position: Hartigan v. Beery, 128 Ill.App.3d 195 , 83 Ill.Dec. 445 , 470 N.E.2d 571 (1984); Chinos Villas, Inc. v. Bemudez, 448 So.2d 1179 (Fla.App.3d Dist.1984); and Bishop v. Nielsen, 632 P.2d 864 (Utah 1981). . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Jacobsen v. Schroder
green
2 sentences2013In addition to Connecticut, the plaintiffs assert that a number of other courts outside of our jurisdiction have held that the parental immunity doctrine precludes the parents of a minor child from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of contribution.12 In opposition to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the defendants contend that the parental immunity doctrine should not preclude them from asserting a contribution claim against A.N.’s parents and offer the following arguments in support of their position: (1) contribution is an equitable doctrine that demands that all parties respons 2013In addition to Connecticut, the plaintiffs assert that a number of other courts outside of our jurisdiction have held that the parental immunity doctrine precludes the parents of a minor child from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of contribution.12 In opposition to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the defendants contend that the parental immunity doctrine should not preclude them from asserting a contribution claim against A.N.’s parents and offer the following arguments in support of their position: (1) contribution is an equitable doctrine that demands that all parties respons | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Securo v. Securo
green
2 sentences2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule ... lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule ... lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Sydenstricker v. Unipunch Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2013The Court disagreed and held that “where the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides an express exception from immunity against suits by an employee in a tort area, it follows that a suit grounded on this exception would enable a third party to maintain an action in contribution.” 169 W.Va. at 449 , 288 S.E.2d at 517 . 13 The plaintiffs state that they are immune from liability under the parental immunity doctrine and argue that there is no exception to parental immunity that would allow the defendants to pursue a contribution claim. 2013The Court disagreed and held that “where the Workmen’s Compensation Act provides an express exception from immunity against suits by an employee in a tort area, it follows that a suit grounded on this exception would enable a third party to maintain an action in contribution.” 169 W.Va. at 449 , 288 S.E.2d at 517 . 13 The plaintiffs state that they are immune from liability under the parental immunity doctrine and argue that there is no exception to parental immunity that would allow the defendants to pursue a contribution claim. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Kincaid v. Mangum
green
2 sentences2013Answer: Yes. 1 This Court held in Syllabus Point 3, in part, of Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404 , 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993), that [w]hen a certified question is not framed so that this Court is able to fully address the law which is involved in the question, then this Court retains the power to reformulate questions certified to it under . . . the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act found in W.Va. 2013Answer: Yes. 1 This Court held in Syllabus Point 3, in part, of Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404 , 432 S.E.2d 74 (1993), that [w]hen a certified question is not framed so that this Court is able to fully address the law which is involved in the question, then this Court retains the power to reformulate questions certified to it under . . . the Uniform Certification of Questions of Law Act found in W.Va. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Smith v. Kauffman
green
2 sentences2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule . . . lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 7 (...continued) (eradicated rule except in instances of reasonable exercise of parental authority or exercise of parental discretion); Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181 , 1 2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule . . . lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 7 (...continued) (eradicated rule except in instances of reasonable exercise of parental authority or exercise of parental discretion); Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181 , 1 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Jenkins v. Snohomish County Public Utility District No. 1
green
2 sentences2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule . . . lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 7 (...continued) (eradicated rule except in instances of reasonable exercise of parental authority or exercise of parental discretion); Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181 , 1 2013The Court found that the parental immunity doctrine precluded this negligence action and declared [t]he basis of this rule . . . lies in the very vital interest which society has in preserving harmony in domestic relations, and in not permitting families to be torn asunder by suits for damages by petulant, insolent, or ungrateful children against their parents for real or fancied grievances. 110 W.Va. at 2 , 156 S.E. at 751 . 7 (...continued) (eradicated rule except in instances of reasonable exercise of parental authority or exercise of parental discretion); Smith v. Kauffman, 212 Va. 181 , 1 | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Goller v. White
green
2 sentences2013The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for example, abolished the parental immunity doctrine in Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402 , 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963), and concluded that it ought to be abrogated except in these two situations: (1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care. 2013The Wisconsin Supreme Court, for example, abolished the parental immunity doctrine in Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402 , 122 N.W.2d 193 (1963), and concluded that it ought to be abrogated except in these two situations: (1) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child; and (2) where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion with respect to the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services, and other care. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Haynes v. City of Nitro
green
2 sentences2013Id., 198 W.Va. at 749 , 482 S.E.2d at 926 (internal citation omitted). 9 This question has been reformulated pursuant to Kincaid v. Mangum, supra. The District Court’s certified question asked “Whether the parental immunity doctrine bars defendants from asserting their independent rights of contribution and indemnity and/or from allocating fault against parents who were allegedly negligent.” We have reformulated the question to focus solely on the key issue–whether the defendants may seek contribution from the parents. 11 Court first recognized the right to inchoate contribution in Haynes v. C 2013Id., 198 W.Va. at 749 , 482 S.E.2d at 926 (internal citation omitted). 9 This question has been reformulated pursuant to Kincaid v. Mangum, supra. The District Court’s certified question asked “Whether the parental immunity doctrine bars defendants from asserting their independent rights of contribution and indemnity and/or from allocating fault against parents who were allegedly negligent.” We have reformulated the question to focus solely on the key issue–whether the defendants may seek contribution from the parents. 11 Court first recognized the right to inchoate contribution in Haynes v. C | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Star Furniture Co. v. Pulaski Furniture Co.
green
2 sentences2013Similarly, in Syllabus Point 5 of Star Furniture Co. v. Pulaski Furniture Co., 171 W.Va. 79 , 297 S.E.2d 854 (1982), this Court held that “[comparative negligence is available as an affirmative defense in a cause of action founded on strict liability so long as the complained of conduct is not a failure to discover a defect or to guard against it.” This Court has never extended the parental immunity doctrine to prevent a defendant from asserting a defense in a product liability action, and we decline to do so in this case. 2013Similarly, in Syllabus Point 5 of Star Furniture Co. v. Pulaski Furniture Co., 171 W.Va. 79 , 297 S.E.2d 854 (1982), this Court held that “[comparative negligence is available as an affirmative defense in a cause of action founded on strict liability so long as the complained of conduct is not a failure to discover a defect or to guard against it.” This Court has never extended the parental immunity doctrine to prevent a defendant from asserting a defense in a product liability action, and we decline to do so in this case. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Paige v. Bing Construction Co.
green
2 sentences2013Co., 61 Mich.App. 480 , 233 N.W.2d 46 (1975) (no contribution because parental authority exception to parental immunity doctrine barred defendant’s third party complaint against father). 13 The defendants also argue that courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that the parental immunity doctrine does not prevent a defendant from seeking contribution from a minor child’s parent. 2013Co., 61 Mich.App. 480 , 233 N.W.2d 46 (1975) (no contribution because parental authority exception to parental immunity doctrine barred defendant’s third party complaint against father). 13 The defendants also argue that courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that the parental immunity doctrine does not prevent a defendant from seeking contribution from a minor child’s parent. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Lee v. Mowett Sales Co.
green
2 sentences2013In addition to Connecticut, the plaintiffs assert that a number of other courts outside of our jurisdiction have held that the parental immunity doctrine precludes the parents of a minor child from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of contribution.12 In opposition to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the defendants contend that the parental immunity doctrine should not preclude them from asserting a contribution claim against A.N.’s parents and offer the following arguments in support of their position: (1) contribution is an equitable doctrine that demands that all parties respons 2013In addition to Connecticut, the plaintiffs assert that a number of other courts outside of our jurisdiction have held that the parental immunity doctrine precludes the parents of a minor child from being joined as a third-party defendant for purposes of contribution.12 In opposition to the plaintiffs’ arguments, the defendants contend that the parental immunity doctrine should not preclude them from asserting a contribution claim against A.N.’s parents and offer the following arguments in support of their position: (1) contribution is an equitable doctrine that demands that all parties respons | 2 | 2013–2013 |
| Chinos Villas, Inc. v. Bermudez green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Bishop v. Nielsen green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Wilkosz v. Wilkosz green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Belcher v. Goins green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Sorensen v. Sorensen green | 1 | 1976–1976 |
| Groves v. Groves green | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.