Streenz v. Streenz
471 P.2d 282
Ariz.
1970
Check Treatment

*1 HAYS, Justice. 471 P.2d 282 minor, by STREENZ, Sharon her Guard petition case is us on a This before for Litem, Francy, ian Ad William J. Ap- review of decision of the Court of Appellant, Two, peals, Ariz.App. Division single P.2d 186 issue raised Streenz, T. James STREENZ and Ramona whether, Arizona, unemancipated wife, Appellees. husband and may bring suit one of No. 9894-PR. injuries for to tor- received due Arizona, parent. Supreme Relying acts of the on Pur- tious Court of Frazer, P.2d 736 In Banc. cell v. Appeals (1967), resolved this Court June 1970. negative. question vacate We Rehearing Denied July 7, Appeals, of the Court of and over- holding rule the of Purcell Frazer. Streenz, unemancipated mi- Sharon nor, brought personal injury action through guardian ad litem her her Streenz, parents, for Ramona James damages resulting from ac- an automobile passenger in car cident. Sharon was a Mrs. driven her mother. Streenz When temporarily sun, her blinded became road, control, left out of car went collision, to the into a tree. Due crashed injuries to her knees. suffered Sharon Streenz, Defendants, and Mrs. Mr. summary judgment, which was for moved Defendants contended granted. “parental immunity,” set doctrine Frazer, supra, prohibit- Purcell v. forth in entertaining this suit. ed Sharon hand, Sharon, on the other contended “parental immunity” doctrine was lim- involving situations the exercise ited to discipline, and that parental control and these her suit was not concerned with since granting functions the limited summary judgment was error. The Court Appeals, relying on Purcell v. Frazer authority, judgment affirmed the court, Judge Lawrence Ploward trial dissenting. injuries to v. Frazer involved

Purcell children in circumstances three minor simi- Molloy, lar to the case. writing Appeals, a unanimous Court of for Carmichael, Stephens, by & N. ap- Johnson family immunity held that Phoenix, Johnson, Jr., appellant. Pike plied Arizona and that therefore Moore, Romley, fa- Kaplan, passenger children could not sue their Robbins & Green, car, Green, ther, Phoenix, negligence. Robert the driver of the PI. appellees. holding primarily on a “domes- rested

gj tranquility” rationale, of which An "tic examination these applying cases Molloy parental wrote: immunity doctrine reveals sev- principal eral policy support reasons are here concerned with a “We common the doctrine.1 tranquility The domestic

activity typical family. American policy, however, is the rationale most fre- are Children often ‘ferried’ about quently Harper offered. 1 James, and parents. It is belief that our Law Torts (1956) 8.11 at 649. § well-being a function is conducive to both the (cid:127)of children and the Although most adopted state courts have intimately connected parental doctrine, welfare there have family. family of a The unit has been been exceptions. notable See Hebel v. He bel, weakened economic and social various (Alaska 1967); 435 P.2d 8 Goller v. changes White, 402, world. modern This 20 122 Wis.2d N.W.2d 193 any step 432, court is reluctant to take Briere, (1963); Briere v. 107 N.H. might bring centrifugal additional force Balts, A.2d (1966); 224 588 Balts v. 273 upon family to bear 419, structure.” Minn. 7 142 (1966). N.W.2d 66 In ad 8, dition, at 435 P.2d at 739. the great majority of law review and treatise writers who have discussed the permit The concluded that to court child subject highly have been critical of the disrupt sue in tort would Prosser, doctrine. (3d Law of Torts 116 § unity. ; 1964) Harper James, Ed. 1 Law parental doctrine is a ; (1956) McCurdy, Torts 8.11 “Torts Be § jurisprudence, creature of American hav Child,” tween Parent and 5 Vill.L.Rev. 521 ing Mississippi foundation in Su ; Drummond, (1960) Akers and “Tort Ac preme Court decision of Hewlett v. tions Between Family— Members of the 703, (1891). George, 68 Miss. 885 9 So. Child,” Husband and Wife—Parent and 26 public That held that because was (1961). Mo.L.Rev. 152 We find that policy harmony tranquility to foster rationale of these and legal cases authori unit, per children should not be ties, arguing partial abrogation favor parents mitted to sue in tort. Since parental doctrine, rendered, George v. Hewlett decision was contemporary more consistent with condi adopted the state courts and concepts tions fairness. parental par doctrine. See McKelvey McKelvey, ticularly 111 Tenn. jurisdictions v. Even in where im 388, ; Roller, (1903) munity 77 S.W. 664 embraced, Roller v. openly has been courts 242, (1905); 37 79 P. Tera Wash. 788 hostility have evinced the doctrine 117, Teramano, mano 6 216 v. Ohio St.2d creating exceptions appli to its numerous Chaffin, (1966); Thus, N.E.2d 375 Chaffin v. states, cation. in most an unemanci (1964); 239 Or. 397 P.2d 771 Downs pated con sue under Poulin, ; Capps 216 A.2d (Me.1966) v. 29 theory. property tract or See v. Goller Smith, 263 White, N.C. 139 S.E.2d 19 supra, 122 N.W.2d 197. In Tucker, (1964); Tucker v. field, 395 P.2d 67 negligence permits Missouri the de Castellucci, (Okla.1964); Castellucci v. 96 bring pendent child to an action 34, 188 A.2d (1963); Hastings R.I. personal representative deceased Hastings, 33 163 A.2d 147 parent. Kilpatrick, Brennecke v. 336 S. N.J. ; (1960) and cases collected at A.L.R.2d California, (Mo. 1960). as in W.2d (1951). 439-42 many states, immunity does McCurdy, chequer, (4) See “Torts Between Parent of inherit- Child,” ance, by parent, Vill.Law Rev. 528-29 of the amount re- principal child, (5) damages reasons stated covered (1) parental care, discipline disturbance domestic tran- interference with quility, (2) danger of fraud and collu- and control. (3) sion, depletion property rights of tect the and contract parent’s tort is mali- apply zealously rights minor more wilful misconduct. constitutes

cious *3 Secondly, ignore 421, person? we cannot P.2d 289 Emery Emery, 45 Cal.2d v. liability in- almost universal existence of Washington, and (1955). In Ohio 218 surance, particularly in the ac- scope automobile his em- acting in the is parent cident realm. Where such insurance ex- time of occupation at the ployment ists, immunity tranquility argument the domestic is act, parental alleged negligent hollow, reality sought by after liti- him prevent a suit not will parent not between gation is child and but Signs Signs, unemancipated 156 child. parent’s child and insurance car- between 566, (1952); N.E.2d 743 St. 103 Ohio ap- respect, quote this 642, rier. we Borst, P.2d 251 41 Wash.2d Borst v. Hebei, following proval the from Hebei v. dis- exceptions reflect (1952). 149 These supra: result injustices which often taste for strict, application pervasive of the from a al- are of further view “We immunity rule. parental liability though the existence insur- dissenting opinion Howard’s liability presence its ance not create instant Appeals’ treatment of the Court significance is considerable here. To inequity points an additional out persist family-harmony adherence by parental created rule: argu- parental-discipline-and-control and injustice “The manifest of the blanket there is automobile ments when brought by home is the follow- view unreal- insurance involved is example. ing siblings Two reside under is there is there small istic. If insurance parental the same roof. One an un- is possibility discipline parental will be emancipated years aged minor 17 and the undermined, peace of the or that emancipated other an minor aged 16. by be shattered allowance of will daughter latter is a married living 435 at 15. the action.” P.2d at home her serving while husband is Frazer decision makes The Purcell v. Army hitch overseas. While both are the fact that the decisions which much of riding passengers by in a car driven parental immunity not abrogated have father, an accident occasioned scope lia- their to situations where limited occurs, negligence father’s resulting in agree Although bility exists. we insurance injuries to both children. The Hebei, supra, that “the existence doctrine bars an action liability” liability insurance does create old, unemancipated year 17 but not before, think the none existed where daughter.” the married insurance is widespread prevalence such 461 P.2d 186 at 188. in- proper element consider. Where Certainly the likelihood of strife domestic compensate the available to surance is is not by prohibiting diminished injuries, of dis- possibility child for his year old child bringing from suit. unity peace negli- ruption hand, gible.

We feel that where principal two factors On nonexistent, by un- we doubt that suits Judge Molloy’s undermine tran “domestic their quility” minor children expressed emancipated rationale in Purcell v. Frazer, frequently entertained. supra, compel parents will be overruling ah pos- above, against the factor, Overwhelmingly weighted expressed case. One disruptive vital sibility suits is that the long permitted common law has public protecting property child to sue interest or contract. loss another’s byp caused say members It unsafe to some tell negligence. To children family disputes prop bitter most arise over peace “pains be endured for yet must erty, does not something of a it welfare of the in this Is limit causes of action area. mockery.” Dissenting opinion pro- reasonable that our law should Justice Fuld, Badigian Badigian, 9 N.Y.2d respect discretion with provision to the food, 215 N.Y.S.2d 174 N.E.2d clothing, housing, medical and services, dental and other care.” 122 N. W.2d at 198. argument is also advanced that permitting unemancipated exceptions child to sue These fully were more encourage plained tort would be subsequent decision, in a Wisconsin collusion, particularly lia- Serváis, fraud Lemmen v. 39 Wis.2d 158 N. bility insurance exists. Such (1968): W.2d 341 *4 exist, course, danger but the same “The immunity granted by these two present, degree, is to in some all ceptions is parent, accorded the be- not In a cases. recent York New parent, cause he is a but because as a case, intra-family in which it was held that pursues he within course the permissible, suits for nonwilful torts are society constellation which exacts Appeals the York New Court stated: of him and is which beneficial the to explain fails to how argument parental state. The non-liability “The not is magically granted reward, be possibility of fraud would as a but as a means merely by attainment the child’s enabling parents removed discharge to the du- argu- majority. does the legal Nor ties society which exacts.” 158 N.W.2d present first instance pretend ment to at 344. possibility of a there is the col- While persuaded pa we are and fraudulent suit. There lusive immunity rental tort by action an un rely in which we analogous situations emancipated child should be for retained jury upon ability to distin- purposes limited such as set those down guish between valid fraudulent court, the Wisconsin we it find unneces jury claims. The effectiveness sary at this time to delineate the scope system pertain will situa- parental which the immunity rule will be The definite and vital interest tion. applied. holding, permitting Our Sharon society protecting losses people from tort, parents Streenz to sue her is limit resulting from should remain accidents ed to the factual situation before us. We Gelbman, paramount.” Gelbman v. specifically hold unemancipated an mi N.Y.2d 297 N.Y.S.2d 245 N.E. nor right child has a of action her 2d parents injuries for incurred in an accident today abroga- holding Our total allegedly caused her negligent mother’s parental tion doctrine. driving. Rather, agree Howard that The Appeals’ opinion Court is vacat- n “the paterfamilias role should not be ed. The trial granting court’s of defend- usurped judiciary intrafamilial summary ant’s judgment motion re- is parental involving discipline, activities care versed, and the remanded for fur- 11 Ariz.App. control.” at 461 P. proceedings ther opin- consistent this Court, Supreme

2d at The Wisconsin ion. White, supra, recognized Goller this LOCKWOOD, J.,C. and STRUCK aspect discretion, important parental MEYER, J., V. C. concur. and held that doc- “ought except abrogated trine to be McFARLAND, (dissenting). Justice these two situations: I am forced to dissent because there has (1) alleged negligent act in- Where the presented been persuasive authority authority an volves exercise of proposed cure majority child; over the worse than the disease. (2) in alleged negligent where the single act question presented in this ordinary parental volves exercise simple case is enough: should an uneman- permitted less the member cipated he to maintain sued is in- say prepared negli- that he effect action cause of decision parents’ gent. tor- child to damages resulting from sue Although will be within the cir- this is determined tious conduct. an automo- obviously proposed cle case, striking bile defendant negligence down of it, participate quite going making doctrine is not limited to this under basic implications unorthodox situation field. The adversary litigation, plain they concept make the area opened analogous The risk of collusion is least. indeed to Gertrude one, Rose; very great human Stein’s famous a tort is a when is a tort tort. insured’s own flesh and blood and the If the is re- from suit family pockctbook are It is tort, moved for an concerned. automobile it follows logically unlikely in that the negli- it is most instances insur- removed for all gent carrier, interests example, acts —for ance whose arc those which slake, really adeejuately can occur in ones de- sanctity home. Need- *5 say, less “sanctity”, the in- to the fend itself. The defendant under also the includes “secrecy” obligation has the to of the surance contract co- home. insurer, obligation operate an with the kept A near forgetfully vacuum cleaner which, ques- absolutely unless there is entrance; open, an an live toaster wire proxi- concurrent tion of his sole or and carelessly ignored by do-it-yourself the fa- negligence (a mate somewhat rare situa- ther; pot boiling or of teakettle water a life), everyday tion in he will find dif- unthinkingly left a tod- within reach of ficult and at the time fur- to fulfill same dler, by all become elements of a suit ther of the suit the successful outcome against parents. the infant child his It (and the child inciden- the benefit of imagination little of takes but to conceive tally reality own), which his what examples. Liability almost unlimited lurks accomplish. The possibility he wishes to every corner And of household. corollary collusion, break- and the through tragedy when strikes the inadvert- integ- down most desirable individual ent, tortious, but nevertheless of the hand rity family frequently involv- within parent (let father), child’s us well, great ing in so is so children as parent par- same must decide —or at least many the kind before us that we cases of ticipate in a decision—whether or conclude, conjunc- feel to constrained not suit should be instituted for the benefit pre- considerations tion with the other father the child. The must decide mentioned, viously public pol- that sound compel whether his duties as a him father may icy precludes prosecution. It their pass upon possibility to recovery of a possibility similar urged be against injuries himself accidental to in other situations fraud also exists years his child of tender and take child suits, permits in ac- our law to guardian some one act as ad litem to host, guest against but u'e are by tions bring the suit himself. father danger great is not so convinced that the must then assume the role defend- of the integrity and the matter of within ant, and, presumably, good assist in faith involved.” in the of the suit in defense accordance “cooperation the terms of the Furthermore, clause” scope of the policy. his versus created is not limited here doctrine of parent; if the expressed Similar fears the ma- able parents will be sue eliminated Court, jority Jersey Supreme the New children. in Hastings Hastings, N.J. A.2d 147: im- Many support of the cases stress, Again, practically speaking munity justification,, in its an going action is not be suits be- great possibility un- of collusive commenced will, and cases as he out parent child.1 Those tribute favors and leaves tween proper- picture depletion overturned the doctrine child’s have ly strength ever- point through collusion assets of health and out par- possibility injury.’ all tort To this [Citation omitted] actions — parties today’s reality fa- ticularly where the are related be added means, (other parent child) inevitably close ther he has will almost friends, insurance, only require scrutiny carry not, closer and if he has juries. prefer my judges anyone I not to rest bringing chances of suit for opinion solely assumption illegal on child are remote. [Citation omitted] n collusion by parents, together agree its con- the existence We of insurance perjury. impose duty upon comitant inferences But how should loyalties far can we strain the of a where none existed before. [Citation However, principles practical torn between his moral as a mat- omitted] ter, offspring? prevalence (cid:127)concern insurance cannot ignored determining whether give by many The other reasons cas- court continue should to discriminate parental immunity es in favor of been by depriv- a class individuals pointed out footnote to the ing right enjoyed them of all other opinion; they litigation are that individuals. [Citations omitted]” deplete would disturb domestic tranquility; tranquility” Preservation of “domestic family treasury; interfere with “parental discipline” discarded discipline; prevent *6 following quotes: inheritance, by offending parent, of the al the further view “We are of amount recovered on behalf of the child. liability insur of though existence prevent The reason to of liability presence create ance merit, (cid:127)inheritance is of dubious To significance here. of considerable presented one support of the family-harmony persist in adherence n doctrine of I would argu parental-discipline-and-control have no hesitation about joining major- liability there automobile ments when ity in opinion. inis unreal involved view insurance opinion A dissenting was filed this there is small If there istic. n case Appeals, discipline our Court of will possibility that 10, quoted 461 P.2d ap undermined, and is peace of or proval by majority of opinion here. Both allowance be shattered will n opinions cite (Alaska) cases which have HebeL tumbled HebeL v. the action.” remaining these principles pa supporting 435 P.2d 8 immunity. rental depletion As for of the parental au- family peace and “family exchequer” Hampshire the New of majority overwhelming thority, in the Court, Briere, in Briere v. 107 N.H. un- cases, be threatened less will 224 A.2d quoted as follows: suit for tort emancipated minor’s depletion “As to the generally of the latter parent, where chequer, insurance, the court Dunlap protected from loss summarily rejected this argument as breach of contract an action for having parent no weight rights substantial property and said enforce it ignored parent’s power ordinarily ‘the a verdict pay have to dis- would There is need to burden 19 A.L.R.2d and are this collected in supplemented A.L.R.2d, with a reiteration in 3 Later Case cases compilation lengthy Service, given hold this and the 34. A reasons n support condemning doctrine can be doctrine. articles Several n cited in the dissenting opinion and, ojnnion in Hast found in the pointed ings Hastings, supra. out, .there earlier cases litigation is not between child and pocket. omit- from his own [Citations Briere, parent’s but between and the supra Briere v. insur-

ted]” ** *” ance carrier. place princi- above-enumerated immunity, To this be added the I find the con- can converse ples in situation favor litigation phrase, trary argument capsuled one between child-tortfeasor, and the abrogation par- of the immu- but between that the the effect parent’s ent and the nity is “more with con- insurance carrier. consistent concepts fair- temporary conditions And, on topic, may while just writers, it text ness.” But nowhere —be thoroughly practical well be and admit that articles, opinions— judicial law-review “contemporary conditions” insurance satisfactory explanation has there been a companies operate basis, profit on a dele- present-day “concepts fair- how our gating the risks experience of increase loss past or ness” differ from the what current- patrons to their in the form increased ly changed require conditions an immediate premiums. Equally preva- realistic is the organ juris- excision of this “diseased” medical-payment coverage, regard- lence of course, cursory reading prudence. Of fault, less of in most automobile of the leave lit- most cited authorities will policies, together home-owner’s with the mind tle doubt reader’s wide-spread carrying hospital- custom of “changed concepts and is “the conditions” ization, surgical coverage. and dental liability prevalence wide insurance in most, all, These cover if not expend- of the * * *” personal injury actions. Goller “family exchequer” itures from the needed White, 20 Wis.2d N.W.2d 193. super- to heal the unfortunate child. The case, supra, phrases The Briere it that as a imposition pain reimbursement — matter, “practical prevalence of insur- etc., suffering, services, loss of as dis- ignored,” ance cannot be but in the same tinguished indemnity for actual ex- potential breath underscores the collusive- penses more to be balm —seems ness such suits with the statement: feelings wounded parent-tortfeasor “* ** today’s this To be added *7 physical than for suffering the the means, reality that if the father has he child. insurance, inevitably carry will almost I cannot concept believe the of a mother not, anyone bring- the chances materially changed or father has with ing suit the child are remote.” for conditions; is, a dedicated [Emphasis added.] parent is willing to any deprivation, suffer average is, family itself, the even one with no loss life —that pre-existing disruption “anyone” well-being in of his children. Even wild —the quotation beasts above be the are possess would child’s known this trait. to litem, mother, guardian going or ad Now the con- we are with to demand respond sidered advice and to in damages, possibly consent of father after trial, reading then after a careful for an unintentional no doubt policies. greatly regretted, lapse insurance diligent This is a clarion- care moral, collusion, to legal, call for his offspring. of not That insurance com- expense pany may pay money carrier. The ma- alter jority opinion frankly expresses principle. practi- prepared I am not to concede relationship cal relationships child-parent litigation: family the value of the can be measured dollars and cents. “* * * Secondly, ignore we cannot concepts expressed Hastings, These the almost universal existence Hastings, supra: insurance, particularly in the automobile appears quite unseemly, to It accident Where realm. such insurance least, exists, suggest to that a mere tranquility argument act domestic hollow, sought circle reality is omission within after carelessness, amounting no to more than the time-honored rule of immuni- ty, do almost then Legislature, which the one to would I to blame would leave it avoid, require anything greater to ability should the with its inquire to into all money by payment of one problem, member of facets of the completely revise group to another. We believé that true this entire field of law. A statement family life, important Badigian Badigian, so our civiliza- 9 N.Y.2d tion, among should not include its foun- N.Y.S.2d 174 N.E.2d still retains dation concept recompensa- validity stones the despite over-ruling Gelbman, ble fault between and unemanci- decision in Gelbman v. 23 N.Y.2d pated utterly children. The idea seems 297 N.Y.S.2d 192: N.E.2d foreign, whether a member or alrady provided “The courts have dif- party compelled some third produce ferent treatment for situations where the money.” injury occurs outside the normal familial relationship injury such as where the Hastings contains the touchstone of the wanton tort and intentional or where the parental-immunity family. doctrine —the par- committed course of the Terms “family exchequer,” such “paren- Perhaps spe- ent’s business. some discipline,” tal tranquility” “domestic provision cial should be made for cases merely suggestive, truly but not disability beyond infancy, extends pressive concept. Henry of this Sir Maine oversimplifi- great but it would be a importance establishes the attempt cation to in- deal with those thusly: simple stances reversal the set- systems “The Roman and Hindoo of law Inquiry planning any tled rule. propose my illustrate I protection beyond competence subject very being far indeed from belongs Legisla- of a court and the only sources from which information ture.” gathered can be concerning the infancy Gelbman, Burke in his mankind, of- concerning even the Ar- supra, pointed agreed out that he had yan race of men. sup- But the evidence Badigian, supra, that in but plied by highly each of them is authen- seven-year the two interval between tic, and, while both of run them back to continuing judi- decisions there had been a may fairly what antiqui- be called a vast the rule cial erosion of and that: ty, they both starting- assume at their point the institution, by interval, existence of the “During legislative that same apparently among means forthcoming. universal intervention has not been *8 * * * savage men, which, of said, out as I inactivity all Legisla- The of grown civilisation has Family. in ture the time of our decision since —the * * *» Maine, History Early of Insti- Badigian illustrates the fact that the rule tutions, p. all, 307 changed, will be a decision of this court. cornerstone, The is the very fabric government. of our form of way For I in the same would treat matter eighty years doctrine, necessarily years) with (although not for seven carefully exceptions, carved-out legislature has been giving our “first refusal” to maintained preserving with the intention of grips problem. come to this basic Any institution. proposal opinion majority The the author follows eradicate the doctrine should be viewed ities which consider the critically any action propos- on a doctrine to be a court-created rule rather al only must come study after careful of law, being founded in the common potential its results. expressed opinion creature of as in —“a If the existence Unfortunately, jurisprudence.” insurance is the sole American catalyst which causes the genesis reaction its become as has as controversial

M Eventually, parental authorities existence. Some

its became one continued land; rule law.2 of the established laws but claim it to be a of common judicial process not without severe re- given The serious consideration first which, many years finement over English in resulted question courts many decisions, away sharp struck divid- rejection the doctrine edges severity spawned by original Young seven-judge court ed Scotland. trilogy, it and honed into a workable law. Rankin, Rpts. 445 Law v. Scot’s Times majority opinion process The views this that court were (1934). The T “evincing hostility for the doctrine.” the fact that the earlier engraftment consider this continued of ex- English Reporters text failed writers ceptions application any rule on it proof that mention the doctrine was normal, judicial procedure. be Judicial English Law. Common never existed ceptions equally compatible with hand, minority the other On concept improvement they to comment equally that this certain failure destruction. proof that the exist- on the doctrine was now, taken for ence of the doctrine was so well However, it seems immaterial required Re- granted that no comment. parental immunity whether descended from of the doctrine grettably, Law, existence the Common a creature of the paternity rejected, Scotland was but judiciary. American be- doctrine has was left doubt. firmly jurisprudence come imbedded in our span eighty years by over a virtue there seems Here the United States every decisions innumerable from almost doubt first little State the Union. I do believe that light day Mississippi saw the with the slavishly precedents. courts should follow George, Miss. case of Hewlett 68 Judges eternally are not shackled to the de- George, sub nom. Hewellette v. So. predecessors. cisions theOn Unfortunately, mali- (1891). it involved hand, T precedents do not believe that can stepfather cious treatment mother lightly disregarded. Mr. Jack- Justice —an element which not have been would aptly son describes this an article enlightened in the later and more condoned 45:1, at Col.L.Rev. 26: stages g., of the doctrine. See e. Goller v. pointed While Cardozo White, supra. joined Soon Hewlett great accuracy out with power by McKelvey McKelvey, 111 Tenn. precedent power ‘the Roller, (1903); 77 S.W. 664 and Roller v. track,’ the beaten still the mere fact that P. Both de- Wash. path persuasive is a beaten one is a pro- as regrettable as their cisions were * * *" following reason for it. genitor. I find it many inconceivable that so courts recourse, years, former denied have walked in many on error for so grounds up present. that it would dishar- even cause mony, to a child who was the victim of However, if there are now valid and *9 what today term the “battered child pressing social abrogation reasons for the syndrome.” latter, with no excuse doctrine, legislature should have reason, and even less refused to disturb the opportunity them, inquiring into tranquility domestic young on behalf a and, necessary, revising this area of tort girl raped who ravaged her fa- law. background ther. From this sordid emerged parental immunity. UDALL, J., concurs this dissent.

2. See cases cited n. A.L.R.2d p.