Sandoval v. Sandoval
623 P.2d 800 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The parental immunity doctrine bars a suit by a minor child against a parent for a negligent act when that act falls within the discretionary scope of parental care, control, and authority, and does not breach a duty owed to the public at large.
Facts:
- Four-year-old Ramero Sandoval lived in a home with a fenced front yard where he typically rode his tricycle.
- On January 22, 1977, Ramero's father, Antonio Sandoval, left the house and negligently forgot to close the gate to the front yard.
- Ramero rode his tricycle through the open gate and into the street in front of his home.
- He was subsequently struck and injured by an automobile driven by Noe Perez Lopez.
- Mr. Lopez was an uninsured motorist, and the Sandoval family did not have uninsured motorist insurance.
- The Sandoval family did have a homeowner's insurance policy they believed would cover a potential judgment.
Procedural Posture:
- Ramero Sandoval, through his guardian ad litem, filed a negligence complaint against his parents in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, a state trial court.
- The defendant parents filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred by the doctrine of parental immunity.
- The Superior Court granted the parents' motion for summary judgment.
- The plaintiff's subsequent motion for a new trial was denied.
- The plaintiff (appellant) appealed the summary judgment to the Arizona 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:
Does the parental immunity doctrine bar a negligence suit by a minor child against his parent for leaving a gate open, through which the child rode his tricycle into the street and was injured by a car?
Opinions:
Majority - Cameron, Justice
Yes. The parental immunity doctrine bars a negligence suit against a parent when the alleged negligent act is part of ordinary parental care and control and does not breach a duty owed to the public at large. The court reasoned that while its prior decision in Streenz v. Streenz partially abrogated parental immunity for automobile negligence, it did not eliminate it entirely. In Streenz, the parent's duty to drive carefully was a duty owed to the world at large. In contrast, the act of closing a gate is a duty owed specifically to the child as part of parental care and control. The court adopted the exceptions from Goller v. White, which preserves immunity for acts involving (1) parental authority and (2) ordinary parental discretion in providing care. Subjecting parents to lawsuits for such discretionary acts would add a heavy and improper burden to the responsibilities of parenthood and would involve the judiciary in second-guessing internal family matters.
Concurring - Holohan, Vice Chief Justice
The author concurred in the result without providing a separate written opinion.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of Arizona's partial abrogation of the parental immunity doctrine established in Streenz v. Streenz. The court distinguishes between a parent's duty owed to the general public (e.g., safe driving), for which there is no immunity, and duties owed specifically within the family sphere (e.g., supervision, providing care), for which immunity is retained. This decision establishes a crucial public duty versus familial duty framework for analyzing future parental immunity cases. It effectively prevents the erosion of the doctrine into matters of everyday parental discretion, ensuring courts do not become arbiters of ordinary parenting decisions.
Unlock the full brief for Sandoval v. Sandoval