parent-child immunity in New Jersey

1983The doctrine of parent-child immunity was first recognized in this State in Reingold v. Reingold, 115 N.J.L. 532 (E. & A. 1935).

1978Reingold v. Reingold, supra [ 115 N.J.L. 532 ] Hastings v. Hastings, supra , and the cases which follow them are overruled.

1978Reingold v. Reingold, supra [ 115 N.J.L. 532 ] Hastings v. Hastings, supra , and the cases which follow them are overruled.

1974Reingold v. Reingold, supra , Hastings v. Hastings, supra , and the cases which follow them are overruled.

2003This flows from Foldi v. Jeffries, supra, because Diane Buono’s negligent supervision of her daughter was neither willful nor wanton, 5 and the doctrine of parent-child immunity has not been abrogated in “situations that involve the exercise of parental authority and customary child care.” Foldi supra, 93 N.J. at 551 , 461 A.2d 1145 .

2003This flows from Foldi v. Jeffries, supra, because Diane Buono’s negligent supervision of her daughter was neither willful nor wanton, 5 and the doctrine of parent-child immunity has not been abrogated in “situations that involve the exercise of parental authority and customary child care.” Foldi supra, 93 N.J. at 551 , 461 A.2d 1145 .

1970But, under Heyman v. Gordon, 40 N.J. 52 (1963), defendants' claim would still be barred by the doctrine of parent-child immunity. [1] *503 The doctrine of parent-child immunity was first articulated in 1891 by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 .

1970But, under Heyman v. Gordon, 40 N.J. 52 (1963), defendants' claim would still be barred by the doctrine of parent-child immunity. [1] *503 The doctrine of parent-child immunity was first articulated in 1891 by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 .

1994Based upon our realization of the limited role of the Appellate Division in such policy matters, we decline to pass upon the merits of the alleged parent-child privilege, reserving such a decision to the Supreme Court should it decide to consider the issue, and to the Legislature., Matter of Gail D., 217 N.J.

1994Super. 226, 232-33 , 525 A. 2d 337 (App.Div., 1987).

1987This court has most recently considered the question of a judicially-created privilege in Dixon v. Rutgers, 215 N.J.

1984As we noted there, "[w]e cannot decide today any more than what is before us, and the question of what other claims should be entertained by our courts must be left to future decisions." Immer, 56 N.J. at 495 .

1984As we noted there, “[w]e cannot decide today any more than what is before us, and the question of what other claims should be entertained by our. courts must be left to future decisions.” Immer, 56 N.J. at 495 .

1981We conclude that the failure to supervise the activities of the infant-plaintiff in the circumstances here presented and to *98 provide care and instruction relating to safety and self-preservation so integrally involved "the exercise of parental authority and care over a child," id., 56 N.J. at 507 , as to be a form of nurture equatable with "food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services.... ." In our view, supervision and instruction on safety are among those incidents of parental care contemplated by the final phrase, "and other care," of the foregoing quotation cited in Small v. Roc

1981We conclude that the failure to supervise the activities of the infant-plaintiff in the circumstances here presented and to *98 provide care and instruction relating to safety and self-preservation so integrally involved "the exercise of parental authority and care over a child," id., 56 N.J. at 507 , as to be a form of nurture equatable with "food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services.... ." In our view, supervision and instruction on safety are among those incidents of parental care contemplated by the final phrase, "and other care," of the foregoing quotation cited in Small v. Roc

1981Transport Corp., 56 N.J. 500 (1970), that the parent-child immunity doctrine "should be abrogated in this State," it acknowledged "that there may be areas involving the exercise of parental authority and care over a child which should not be justiciable *93 in a court of law." Noting that its decision went no further than to allow suits between unemancipated children and their parents for injuries suffered as the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, the court left it to future cases to decide "what limits, if any, the rule enunciated here should have." 56 N.J. at 507 .

1981Transport Corp., 56 N.J. 500 (1970), that the parent-child immunity doctrine "should be abrogated in this State," it acknowledged "that there may be areas involving the exercise of parental authority and care over a child which should not be justiciable *93 in a court of law." Noting that its decision went no further than to allow suits between unemancipated children and their parents for injuries suffered as the result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, the court left it to future cases to decide "what limits, if any, the rule enunciated here should have." 56 N.J. at 507 .

1977Goller , however, established the following exceptional situations wherein the doctrine could still be asserted as a defense: (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. [ 122 N.W. 2d at 198 ] In Silesky, supra, the Minnesota Supreme Court expressly approved these limitations.

1976Super. 338, 343-344 (Law Div. 1972) (so holding in respect of the parent-child immunity); O'Connor v. Altus, 67 N.J. 106, 116 (1975), and Rappeport v. Flitcroft, 90 N.J.

1970But, under Heyman v. Gordon, 40 N.J. 52 (1963), defendants' claim would still be barred by the doctrine of parent-child immunity. [1] *503 The doctrine of parent-child immunity was first articulated in 1891 by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 .

1970But, under Heyman v. Gordon, 40 N.J. 52 (1963), defendants' claim would still be barred by the doctrine of parent-child immunity. [1] *503 The doctrine of parent-child immunity was first articulated in 1891 by the Mississippi Supreme Court in Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703 , 9 So. 885 .