Legal Definitions - parental-immunity doctrine

The parental-immunity doctrine is a legal principle that, in many jurisdictions, prevents an unemancipated child from suing their parent, or a parent from suing their unemancipated child, for certain types of civil wrongs, particularly negligence. The primary reasons historically cited for this doctrine include preserving family unity, maintaining parental authority, and preventing the courts from interfering with routine child-rearing decisions. However, many jurisdictions have significantly limited or even abolished this doctrine, especially in cases involving intentional harm, motor vehicle accidents, or business-related activities.

Here are some examples illustrating the parental-immunity doctrine:

• Example 1: Household Negligence

  A parent asks their 10-year-old child to help carry groceries into the house. While carrying a heavy bag, the child trips over a garden hose that the parent negligently left coiled across the walkway. The child falls and breaks their wrist. Under the parental-immunity doctrine, the child would likely be prevented from suing the parent for negligence, as this incident stems from a common household oversight and falls within the scope of typical family activities and parental supervision.

• Example 2: Motor Vehicle Accident (Common Exception)

  A mother is driving her teenage daughter to a soccer game. Due to the mother's distracted driving, she runs a red light and collides with another vehicle, causing the daughter to suffer a concussion and broken leg. While the parental-immunity doctrine might initially seem to apply, many states have created specific exceptions for motor vehicle accidents. In such jurisdictions, the daughter would likely be able to sue her mother for negligence, often because insurance coverage is available to compensate for the injuries, reducing the argument that a lawsuit would disrupt family harmony.

• Example 3: Intentional Harm (Doctrine Does Not Apply)

  A father intentionally and repeatedly physically abuses his minor child, resulting in severe and lasting injuries. In this scenario, the parental-immunity doctrine would almost universally not apply. Courts generally do not extend immunity to parents for intentional torts or willful misconduct. Therefore, the child would be able to sue the father for battery and other intentional torts, demonstrating the limits of the doctrine when parental actions move beyond mere negligence into deliberate harm.