Legal Opinion

Strahorn v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

Superior Court of Delaware

Decided May 9, 1956No. 1046PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Layton, J.:

The question is one of first impression in this State. Elsewhere, the cases are in confusion due, at least in part, to the manifold complexities existing in the parent-child relationship. The majority rule is that an unemancipated minor cannot sue a parent in tort in a case of ordinary negligence. Note 19 A. L. R. 2d 439; Wood v. Wood, 135 Conn. 280, 63 A. 2d 586; Skillin v. Skillin, 130 Me. 223, 154 A. 570; Hewlett v. George, 68 Miss. 703, 9 So. 885, 13 L. R. A. 682; Luster v. Luster, 299 Mass. 480, 13 N. E. 2d 438; Martens v. Martens, 11 N. J. Misc. 705, 167 A. 227.

The rule is…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Hewlett v. GeorgeMississippi Supreme Court · 1891
  2. Dunlap v. DunlapSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1930
  3. Cowgill, Adm'r v. Boock, Adm'rOregon Supreme Court · 1950
  4. Borst v. BorstWashington Supreme Court · 1952
  5. Ruiz v. ClancySupreme Court of Louisiana · 1935

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. Parks v. ParksSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1957
  2. Williams v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Delaware · 1976
  3. Montgomery County v. Valk Manufacturing Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1989
  4. Crotta v. Home Depot, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
  5. Fields v. Synthetic Ropes, Inc.Supreme Court of Delaware · 1965

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API