*1 tlement is unenforceable because was oral and not properly memori- alized, why there was an insufficient basis dismiss the suit. As we found, have the court correctly determined that such oral settlements are facts, enforceable. Given these reject we the plaintiffs unsup- ported remaining suggestion procedural error in the court’s dis- missal absent a pending dismissal motion. Dismissal of the previously settled suit was not reversible error.
Based on the foregoing, the judgment of the circuit court of Ful- ton is affirmed. WOMBACHER, JJ.,
STOUDER and concur. ACKLEY, MARY ANN Minor, Mother and Next Ackley, Friend Plaintiff-Appellant, ACKLEY, v. DENNIS Defendant-Appellee.
Third District No. 3—87—0316 Opinion 22, 1988. January filed BARRY, P.J., dissenting. *2 Ltd., Joliet, Braun, Stefanich, Okrei, McGarry, & of
Bennett J. of Wols appellant. for P.C., Aurora, Lindner, Reuland, ap- of for Speers, Speers
Robert of & pellee. of the court: opinion delivered the
JUSTICE SCOTT court Will order of the circuit of stems from an appeal This in of a minor child brought an action behalf which dismissed in main- negligence a noncustodial father’s allegedly occasioned a taining stairway. in April were divorced Ackley Ann and Dennis
Mary Ackley child, daughter, minor 1966. Sole of the custody parties’ fa- mother, rights to visitation Mary, subject awarded to the at the home During month. a weekend visit per ther of one weekend result Dennis, as the father, injured the minor child Lisa was of her falling flight down a of stairs. Lisa, filed a the minor mother and next friend of as the Mary, Dennis, it was al- father, wherein against complaint negligence failure father’s resulted from the defendant leged negligence that the at his stairway on the and handrails stairway guards to provide failure was a violation alleged further home. The complaint Ultimately safety regulations. forth certain setting of an ordinance allegation added the filed which complaint second amended was injured, the minor at the time of the occurrence when for compensate which would homeowner’s insurance defendant had parent- ruled that The trial court negligence. his complained-of the sec- action and dismissed doctrine precluded child immunity complaint. ond amended the facts in this is whether appeal
The presented issue doctrine. immunity parent-child compel this case ago. a century The in Illinois almost doctrine was first is of 577.) judicial Ill. The doctrine (Foley Foley is im that a provides not creation and statutory essentially chil minor brought unemancipated mune from tort actions his dren. is based are avoidance policies upon The which of collu a harmonious avoidance disrupting family relationship, claims, discipline. and undermining parental authority sive (Stallman v. Youngquist (1987), a mi permitted It is noted that in the Stallman case the court (automobile collision) against
nor child to with a tort action proceed court in reviewing her It should further be noted that parent. stated, Stallman limit our to the circum specifically “We stances of the case us ***. ‘Allowance of such an action does before not undermine and nor does threaten parental authority discipline to substitute discretion for discretion in the care and judicial ” at rearing of minor children.’ 152 Ill. at 926. minor, Lisa, mother on behalf of the would have this that the trend is to interpret indicating Stallman doctrine either in its or at parent-child entirety
least to an extent which the action in the instant case. As permits *3 forth, set the lim- previously reviewing court in Stallman specifically ited its to automobile tort cases. do not interpret
We
Stallman as an invitation to
or
carve another
in the
the
our courts
exception
years
doctrine. Over
doctrine, i.e.,
have recognized
to the
where a claim is
exceptions
Tort
brought pursuant
Among
to the Illinois
Joint
Contribution
1983,
70,
feasors Act
v.
(Ill.
par.
seq.) (Hartigan
Rev. Stat.
ch.
301 et
195,
Berry
571),
N.E.2d
and where will
(1984),
App.
128 Ill.
3d
470
ful
the
alleged against
parent (Nudd
and wanton misconduct is
v.
608,131
7 Ill. 2d
(1956),
525).
Matsoukas
N.E.2d
few,
Though exceptions, albeit
have been recognized, our su
preme court has made
inroads
few
on the doctrine of parent-child
451,
tort
immunity. (Mroczynski
(1966),
v. McGrath
34 Ill. 2d
216
N.E.2d
supreme
Our
has in fact afforded teachers a quan
tum of immunity
Kobylanski
similar to that
to
v.
provided
parents.
705;
Chicago
165,
Board
Education
63 Ill. 2d
(1976),
Gerrity
47,
71 Ill. 2d
we disagree.
(1968),
100 Ill.
2d
12;
Cosmopolitan
National Bank v.
N.E.2d
Heap
(1970),
128 Ill.
165,
App. 2d
In the instant case we are confronted with somewhat situation, factual unique presents one that as to the sta question tus of a noncustodial under the tort doc parental arguments trine. policy presented by Public can be and have been both the plaintiff and defendant. We are unaware of Illinois case any status; that has addressed the parent’s issue as noncustodial however, our that examination cases convinces us review moved, ing courts have to very cautiously recognizing noted, doctrine. As the doctrine has been judicially Illinois since 1895. We are not convinced social needs and public a further policy today require inroad into the doctrine. If change is needed in the doc long-established trine, then this court is of the opinion change should be Caterpillar court. See Prewein v. Tractor Co. made by supreme our 687, N.E.2d 161. For the change reasons set forth we decline law as re- quested and affirm the of the circuit court judgment County. Will
HEIPLE, J., concurs. BARRY, dissenting. PRESIDING JUSTICE I dissent. and result of Stallman v. Youngquist
I with the agree reasoning (1987), 152 Ill. supporting cases cited therein.