Murphy v. Murphy
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtZeller, J.
An action for personal injuries resulting from nonwillful .negligence may not be maintained by an unemancipated child against Ms parent. (Cannon v. Cannon, 287 N. Y. 425; Sorrentino v. Sorrentino, 248 N. Y. 626.) The reason for *229the rule is to prevent the injection of disruptive litigation into family unity. When close unity ceases to exist, the reason for the rule disappears and the rule itself is not applicable. Consequently, an emancipated child may maintain a cause of action against his parent for injuries sustained through the alleged nonwillful negligence of his parent.
Emancipation of a…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Cannon v. CannonNew York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Sorrentino v. SorrentinoNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Town of Plainville v. Town of MilfordSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Smith v. GilbertSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
- Nichols v. Harvey & HancockCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1924
3Cited by13 opinions
- Parks v. ParksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
- Vda. de Ruiz v. Registrador de la PropiedadSupreme Court of Puerto Rico · 1967
- Alfonso v. FernandezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
- Bates v. BatesNew York City Family Court · 1970
- Bahr Ex Rel. Bahr v. BahrSupreme Court of Missouri · 1972
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.