*1 13 a imposed by jail sentence unexpired serving an presently he is view from for this support There is scattered of this state. court 609) but it is (Opinion 201 Mass. Justices, early cases some People Bartley, v. 383 we do not follow. minority view which request the rendition could have withheld Ill. 437. Governor (RSA his' in this state plaintiff had served sentence until with 612:19) right discretionary that was but this was Murphy, personal right fugitive. See and not a Governor (16 Wall) 206; Taylor 83 S. Petitioner, Taintor, v. U. 321 Mass. support gives strong The Uniform Criminal Extradition Law 366. right grant executive nature of the or exclusively to the (RSA 612:2) does not violate rendition and its exercise refuse powers provisions of our Constitution. N. H. separation I, 37th; Murphy, Petitioner, supra, RSA 612: Const., Pt. Art. (2d) People also, Babb, Ill. 27. See Exceptions overruled. J., part decision; took no the others concurred. Wheeler, Strafford,
No. 4525. her mother and next & a.
Deborah Worrall friend Adm’r. Harold Moran, D.
Argued February 5, 1957. April 30,
Decided *2 (Mr. Charles F. Hartnett Murphy, and Maurice J. Jr. Hartnett orally), plaintiffs. for the (Mr. orally),
Devine & Millimet Millimet for defendant. The presented J. issue is whether tort actions can be Blandin, of unemancipated maintained in behalf the two minor children against the administrator of their father’s estate. In the recent Levesque case we considered the question unemancipated whether an minor could sue his father weight and decided in accordance with the of authority that such Id., 148, an action was not maintainable. and authorities cited. In this it should connection also be noted that we stated that the parent “payment money by the to the child” bywas no means public sole determinant of the policy such suits. Id., 149. At the time we “if same said that however the general almost of liability existence insurance has so materially changed the cir- cumstances which militated such change suits that a public policy prevailing in now this state should be made we think for Legislature that is a matter determine rather than being province Id., within the of this court.” The problem placed whole Legislature before the at the next was session 1955 when House Bill No. 236 was introduced which given unemancipated would have in a suit against minor parent rights “the for same therefor, to recover guardian litem, the name of a ad persons as third would injury.” (Emphasis supplied). have like bill This was de- on the of the feated floor House. 1955 House Journal 703, 704. committee which bill, No. was also introduced into Another against a unemancipated have suits minors would permitted parent up to the limits liability insurance, who had and recovery degree This after policy. presumably was modeled to a RSA permits 412:3 which suits which otherwise would be barred (Cushman governmental the state or subdivisions Grafton, 32) liability N. H. in cases where and force, is allows recovery up to the limits. The on reported committee House “inexpedient legislate” Bill report accepted. No. 188 and the was 1955 House Journal plaintiffs argue that since the dead, disruption father is a suit him family disappears relations therefore light
an action should be maintainable. In the of what we said in case the full opportunity afforded *3 change law, argument to the this seems to in the face of the fly legislative indicated by pass intent as their refusal to either of proposed the bills or to take other any permitting by suits against parent representative. a child or his
Furthermore, jurisdictions other have advanced additional against plaintiffs’ position. reasons which militate the In Lasecki v. Kabara, 645, 235 Wis. a case on all fours with the present, the in in a denying recovery unemancipated court suit minor representative the parent’s the estate said: hold “To unemancipated may that an minor not recover from if parent, its living, negligence, for the latter’s but so if may parent die, do the open permit unemancipated would wide the door and to file minors kinds, sounding tort, against claims of all the estates of parents bring their or to actions based the thereon admin- parents’ grave istrators of their estates. We have such doubts as policy we, the of such a that we consider that to wisdom as declare it ... . If the court, should not deems it wise give unemancipated to to minors causes of action their grounded upon living parents estates, or their the torts or parents, may Id., opinion it do so.” 651. The further of their there no insurance such noted that where was claims the ill-feeling the among cause serious survivors parent’s estate would surviving the or other children “the might take from widow support.” Id., their 652. With reference the essentials of very factor it should be observed that even cited authority plaintiffs support which would admits that to do recovery the because there merely in the absence of statute is insurance so logic provisions and the of the insurance “would violate both Relations, contract.” Torts between Persons in Domestic McCurdy, 1030, 1074; also, Shaker, 43 Harv. L. Rev. see Shaker v. 129 Conn. (2d) 19 A. L. R. anno. appears It the Court acted properly dismissing suits, the being exceptions there no other the order is
Judgment the in both actions. defendant J., dissented; J., part decision; Wheeler, Duncan, took no the others concurred. J., dissenting: I opinion dissented from the
Duncan, court in 99 N. PI. for reasons there In since I period elapsed, summarized. the brief have seen no although I change views, recognize reason am bound to that my that they did not become law of case. “The considerations governed years ago me . . . have not lost their force that two gives authority single that time to a decision.” reason of dissenting Frankfurter, J., in Radovich v. National Football League, (U. S.), Ct. 77 S. cases,
I dissent in these not so because respectfully much Levesque case, but because I think it my regarding views that It rule, should not control this decision. is a familiar which finds (see expression Moldawan, own cases Standish v. our exists, longer behind a rule no 204), that “when disappear.” Kalkosinski, Kaczorowski v. 321 Pa. rule should *4 supra, Levesque I v. an un 438, 444. As understand an maintaining minor is held disabled from action emancipated thought because there is to negligence father for be against his jurisdiction parental public policy authority in this that overriding disrupted. not thus be To the cases now unity should family and principle policy cannot and hence the apply; the court that before upon. be relied case should not of that surviving brought minor Deborah is The suit on behalf her the administrator of father’s estate. by mother, against her relationship daughter father ended. The of and has parental The placed by the under which Deborah was personal disability death, the and his to an end with father’s Levesque case came lifetime. beyond not extend his Dana v. personal immunity did supra. 497; Kalkosinski, Kaczorowski See Supp. 126 F. Smith, principle recognized The is 153, N. H. 155. Trentini, Morse v. 100
17 the adopted by birthplace the the of applied by 335, 347. Nelson, 212 Miss. Deposit Guar. Co. v. Levesque case. brought in the action parental authority no threat to There can be mother, in whom brought the by it is minor, for the because family is threat to any If there parental authority now resides. make compensation as will from denial of such unity, it will arise ed.) (2nd 101, p. s. See Prosser on Torts again. the child whole by indemnified The defendant administrator is pay damages him “to protects liability from to presumably which insured. RSA the minor child of the named including others” upon Levesque no relied has public policy The 268:1 VII. Worrall, and brought for Deborah the the action relation to it. permitted be- to maintain plaintiff should brought mother to for action, the recover by
In the second Lynn, minor child there is even less wrongful death of the the upon Levesque the doctrine of the case. justification relying for belong the damages by which statute mother The action seeks 556:14; 561:1; Burnham, N. H. Burke 97 alone. RSA Laws, Couture, of s. Ghilain v. Restatement, Conflict See negligence by An for a married woman N. H. 48. action jurisdiction. this Lumbermens her husband is maintainable cited; Blake, and cases Priddle v. Cas. Co. v. can under Co., Certainly N. H. 73. she be no Insurance such an action her husband’s incapacity to maintain acting can she be under a disability No more as estate. daughter’s estate, her where her of the action is for administratrix justification I individually. applying see no for the benefit own a Levesque doctrine to such case. taken the one its negative of the decision of the case should be
committees since not significance in the decision of these regarded particular cases. protection that the breach furnished Financial Now (RSA 268, supra) ch. Responsibility widened, Act is further challenge Legislature. be offered greater not, If may upon public depend provide the insurers themselves to must parents protect wish to coverage who their children consequences negligence, just protection their such as has injury through been offered recently *5 operators. uninsured other exception plaintiff opinion
In should be my sustained in each case.