Goller v. White
20 Wis. 2d 402, 122 N.W. 2d 193 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of parental immunity is abrogated in negligence cases, except where the alleged negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child, or where the act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion regarding the provision of care.
Facts:
- Daniel Goller, a minor, was placed in the licensed foster home of James J. White by the Milwaukee County Department of Public Welfare.
- White had legal custody of Goller delegated to him, placing him in the position of in loco parentis (acting as a parent).
- Goller lived in White's household as a foster child.
- While performing services for White on his farm, Goller sustained personal injuries allegedly due to White's negligence.
- At the time of the incident, White held a 'Farmers Liability and Medical Payments Policy' with Farmers Mutual insurance company.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Goller, by his guardian ad litem, sued his foster father, James J. White, and White's insurer, Farmers Mutual, in a Wisconsin trial court.
- Farmers Mutual moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, dismissing the complaint against the insurer on September 5, 1962.
- White moved for summary judgment on the grounds of parental immunity.
- The trial court granted White's motion, dismissing the complaint against him on November 14, 1962.
- Goller, the plaintiff, appealed both summary judgments to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a person who stands in loco parentis to a minor immune from a suit by that minor to recover for personal injuries caused by negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Currie, J.
No. A person who stands in loco parentis to a minor is not immune from a suit by that minor for negligence. The court abrogates the parental immunity doctrine in negligence cases, subject to two exceptions. The court first determined that White’s insurance policy did not cover Goller's injuries because policy exclusions applied to him both as a member of the public (being 'in the care of an insured') and as an employee (being a 'member of the family' residing in the household). The court then overturned its precedent, Wick v. Wick, which established parental immunity. It reasoned that the original justification for immunity—preserving family harmony—is unconvincing, especially given that spouses are permitted to sue each other and suits over property rights are allowed between parents and children. Citing the modern prevalence of liability insurance and its own responsibility to change court-made law in the interest of justice, the court abolished the general rule of parental immunity. The abrogation is subject to two exceptions: (1) where the negligent act involves an exercise of parental authority over the child, and (2) where the act involves an exercise of ordinary parental discretion in providing care. In a supplemental opinion, the court made this new rule prospective, applying only to causes of action arising on or after June 28, 1963, except for the present case.
Concurring - Brown, C.J.
No. The defendant is not immune from liability, but the broader parental immunity doctrine for true parents should not be abolished. Chief Justice Brown concurred in the result because he did not believe the relationship between a foster parent and foster child constituted a true parental relationship that deserved immunity. He strongly disagreed with the majority's decision to abrogate the long-standing parental immunity doctrine for actual parents, arguing that such a significant change in public policy is a matter for the legislature, not the court. He would have upheld the authority of Wick v. Wick and left the creation of new rights of action to the legislative branch.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered tort law in Wisconsin by abrogating the common law doctrine of parental immunity. The court's reasoning reflects a broader judicial trend away from intra-family immunities, viewing them as archaic and unjust. The significance lies in the new framework it establishes: a general rule of liability balanced by specific exceptions for core parental functions, which has influenced other jurisdictions. The case also affirms the court's power and responsibility, following Holytz v. Milwaukee, to evolve the common law to meet modern social realities, such as the prevalence of liability insurance, even when the legislature has declined to act.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Goller v. White (1963)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"