Daily v. Parker
162 A.L.R. 819, 32 Ohio Op. 223, 152 F.2d 174 (1945)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Children have a common law cause of action for damages against a third party who wrongfully entices their parent away from the family home, leading to a loss of financial support, comfort, protection, and society.
Facts:
- The four minor plaintiffs are the children of Olive Means Daily and Wilfred J. Daily, residing in Pennsylvania.
- Defendant, Mrs. Marian Parker, a married woman living in Illinois, enticed Wilfred J. Daily away from his and his family's home.
- Wilfred J. Daily subsequently went to Chicago, Illinois, and began living with Mrs. Parker.
- As a result of Mrs. Parker's alleged actions, Wilfred J. Daily fails and refuses to maintain or support his children or their home.
Procedural Posture:
- The four minor children of Olive Means Daily and Wilfred J. Daily, through their mother as next friend, filed a complaint in the District Court (federal trial court) against Mrs. Marian Parker.
- The District Court answered the question of whether a cause of action existed in the negative and dismissed the complaint.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a common law cause of action exist for minor children to recover damages against a third party who entices their father away from the family home, resulting in a loss of financial support, comfort, protection, and society?
Opinions:
Majority - Evans, Circuit Judge
Yes, a common law cause of action exists for minor children to recover damages against a third party who has invaded and taken from said child the support and maintenance of its father, as well as damages for the destruction of other rights which arise out of the family relationship and have been destroyed or defeated by a wrongdoing third party. The court recognized the family as a unit where each member (father, mother, children) has rights to society, companionship, and financial aid from others. Children possess rights to support and maintenance (financial) and to the comfort, protection, and society of their father (non-financial). The absence of direct precedent is not a conclusive reason to deny a common law remedy when a right has been invaded by a wrongful act, as the common law is dynamic and capable of meeting changing conditions through 'judicial empiricism.' The court held that if state courts have not ruled on such a right, federal courts should decide the question based on sound judgment, reflecting societal changes in the accepted view of the status of wives and children. While the argument that losing a deserting father might not constitute a 'loss' has some weight, the loss of financial support is clear and the assessment of damages is a factual question for the jury.
Analysis:
This case is legally significant for expanding the scope of common law torts to protect children's family rights. It explicitly rejects the notion that the absence of direct precedent bars the recognition of a legitimate cause of action, endorsing judicial empiricism and the evolution of common law. The decision establishes that children, as integral members of the family unit, possess enforceable rights to their parents' support, society, and comfort, which can be protected against wrongful interference by third parties. This ruling challenged the traditional view that only spouses had a cause of action for alienation of affections and helped pave the way for a more modern understanding of family relationships in tort law.
