Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 52 — CIVIL ACTIONS · Chapter 925 — Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572c

Parent-child immunity abrogated in certain negligence actions

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In all actions for negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, and in all actions accruing on or after October 1, 1979, for negligence in the operation of an aircraft or vessel, as defined in section 15-127, resulting in personal injury, wrongful death or injury to property, the immunity between parent and child in such negligence action brought by a parent against his child or by or on behalf of a child against his parent is abrogated.

(1967, P.A. 596, S. 1; P.A. 79-5.)

History: P.A. 79-5 removed obsolete reference to actions accruing after July 1, 1967, for negligence in operation of motor vehicle and applied section to actions for negligence in operation of aircraft or vessel accruing on or after October 1, 1979.

In absence of express statutory exceptions, doctrine of parental immunity from actions at law by child prevail. 157 C. 445. Cited. 200 C. 290; 207 C. 518; 224 C. 483; 230 C. 472; 234 C. 259. Doctrine of parental immunity bars action to recover for personal injuries sustained by child as result of fire that occurred at the home of child's noncustodial parent during a scheduled visit. 244 C. 692.

“Operator of motor vehicle” for purposes of statute discussed. 9 CA 290. Cited. 20 CA 619; 34 CA 866.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1969–2014 · leading case: Dzenutis v. Dzenutis
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dzenutis v. Dzenutis (1986) conn · cites it 10× “General Statutes § 52-572c; Public Acts 1967, No.”
Ascuitto v. Farricielli (1998) conn · cites it 8× “Although we stated in Dzenutis that there are situations, such as in General Statutes § 52-572c, in which the likely availability of insurance is relevant, this is not one of them.”
Szollosy v. Hyatt Corp. (2002) ctd · cites it 8× “” Conn.Gen. Stat. § 52-572c. 8 Section 15-127 defines “vessel” as “every description of watercraft, other than a seaplane on water, used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.”
Roberts v. Caton (1993) conn · cites it 4× “Parental immunity has been partially abrogated already by General Statutes § 52-572c, which permits an action by a minor child against a parent for negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel.”
Squeglia v. Squeglia (1995) conn · cites it 4× “300 ; (2) the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, aircraft or waterborne vessel; General Statutes § 52-572c; 5 or (3) sexual abuse, sexual assault or sexual exploitation.”
Jackson v. Johnson (1986) connappct · cites it 8× “The plaintiff claims that General Statutes § 52-572c 2 abrogated that doctrine on the facts of this case.”
Henderson v. Woolley (1994) conn · cites it 3× “The legislature departed from this public policy rationale in 1967, when it created a statutory exception to the parental immunity doctrine by enacting into law General Statutes § 52-572c, which gives an unemancipated minor a cause of action against a parent for the negligent…”
Dubay v. Irish (1988) conn “We note that the legislature has made no such differentiation in the enactment of § 52-572c, which abrogates the immunity for motor vehicle, aircraft and boat accidents without regard to whether there may be insurance coverage.”
Frye v. Frye (1986) md · cites it 2× “8 See also Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572c (1985); N.C.Gen.”
Munn v. Hotchkiss School (2014) ctd · cites it 2× “21 Even if Hotchkiss’s characterization of its parental negligence theory were accurate, it would not fall within any recognized exception to the parental immunity doctrine.”
Black v. Solmitz (1979) me “Conn.Gen.Stat.Ann. § 52-572c (Supp. 1979); N.”
Jilani by and Through Jilani v. Jilani (1988) tex “2d 721, 723 (1976); Conn.Gen.Stat. § 52-572c (1985); N.C.Gen.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.