| Generally, parents and children have the right to sue each other for most personal injuries that are caused by negligence. This right is determined by the status of the parental immunity doctrine in the particular jurisdiction where an actions is brought.
Accidental Injuries
Where the parent-child immunity suit still survives in some form, it may bar a suit in tort by a child against a parent for injuries resulting from a parent's negligent performance of acts within the parent's discretion and authority. Such conduct, which courts sometimes describe as conduct that has a ''family purpose'' or that is ''inherent to the parent-child relationship,'' includes the provision of food, clothing, shelter, medical care, education, discipline and recreation. In states that maintain these areas of immunity, tort suits are permitted only when the court deems the negligent conduct to be non-discretionary. Thus, a parent could be liable for negligently causing the child's injuries in a car accident, although that parent did not cause the accident.
States that retain parental immunity usually permit parents and children to sue each other for injuries caused by negligent operation of an automobile and for injuries suffered as a result of acts performed outside the normal parental relationship, such as in an employer-employee relationship between parent and child. Many states that have entirely abrogated parental immunity apply a special standard by which to judge the applicable duty of care, which is either a ''reasonable parent'' or ''reasonable child'' standard. In addition, many states refuse to recognize a cause of action by or on behalf of a child based upon a parent's negligent supervision.
Failure to Protect
In a few cases, courts have recognized a child's claim against a parent for permitting the child to be abused by the other parent or by another family member. What distinguishes this tort from a tort between adults, which follows the traditional rule that family members have no legal duty to prevent injury to each other, is that parents are deemed to have a special duty to protect their minor children from known and foreseeable harm. The assertion of this kind of claim against the non-abusive parent is an attempt to find a source of monetary compensation under the homeowner's insurance policy of the parent for non-intentional acts that injured the child. Injury directly resulting from intentional abuse would not ordinarily be covered by homeowner's insurance.
Prenatal Injuries
One special set of circumstances involves the allegedly negligent conduct of a pregnant woman that caused injury to her fetus. This negligent conduct includes the failure to receive prenatal care or the use of illegal substances. Courts have differed on whether a cause of action should be permitted to be brought by or on behalf of the child who is born alive and suffers from the consequences of such prenatal injuries. Several courts that recognize such claims reason that parental immunity for negligent conduct has been abrogated and that the parent who caused the injury should not be exempt from liability because the child could sue a third party for negligently caused prenatal injuries. Courts that refuse to recognize such claims have maintained that a pregnant woman must be free to conduct herself during her pregnancy without judicially established rules for proper prenatal conduct; that many women do not have the knowledge or means to receive proper prenatal care; and that, during pregnancy, a fetus cannot have rights separate from, and hostile to, the interests of its mother.
Copyright 2010 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. |