Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

parental-immunity doctrine

Read a random definition: limited liability

A quick definition of parental-immunity doctrine:

The parental-immunity doctrine is a rule that says children cannot sue their parents, and parents cannot sue their children, for accidents or injuries. This rule was created by American courts and means that parents are not responsible for damages caused by their child's ordinary negligence. However, this immunity does not apply if the injury was caused by willful or criminal behavior. Some courts have abolished this doctrine for certain purposes, such as when a minor child is injured in a car accident.

A more thorough explanation:

The parental-immunity doctrine is a legal principle that states that children cannot sue their parents, and parents cannot sue their children, for tort claims. This means that if a child is injured due to the negligence of their parent, they cannot sue their parent for damages. Similarly, if a parent is injured by their child's actions, they cannot sue their child for damages.

For example, if a child is injured in a car accident caused by their parent's negligent driving, they cannot sue their parent for damages. Similarly, if a parent is injured by their child's reckless behavior, they cannot sue their child for damages.

However, many courts have abolished this doctrine for some purposes, such as actions by unemancipated minors against parents to recover for injuries sustained in motor-vehicle accidents. Additionally, the immunity does not apply when an injury is inflicted by the parent or child through willful, wanton, or criminal conduct.

Overall, the parental-immunity doctrine provides a complete defense to a tort action between parents and children.

parental immunity | parental kidnapping

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
yeah there are so many good cuisines in ithaca
renard99
22:31
@lilypadfrog: that’s a pity I’da be liking them all
texaslawhopefully
22:31
Only food I’m going to miss for sure if I leave Texas is texmex
22:31
waspy hasnt had thai food in ithaca yet. ithaca thai is so good
^^^^ truuuuuu
22:32
there are two major thai places and they have very similar names bc a divorced husband and wife own them lol
22:32
personally i think taste of thai is better than taste of thai express but thats just me
i had pho tho and it was really good and huge portions
texaslawhopefully
22:32
Glad they have good Thai food, I love Thai food! Can’t wait to visit :)
22:33
when tex goes to ithaca i want to come
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.