Professor Jill Sanchez-Myers
For a parent to be immune from a tort suit brought by his child the child must be a minor, and the suit must be for negligence. Also, parents are not immune from suits for intentional torts. A parent is also immune when the child is not self-supporting and brings a suit for negligence regardless of whether or not he is a minor. The court held in Peepe v. Peepe that a parent is immune from suit for negligence brought by his child who was not a minor and not self-supporting. In Smith v. Smith the court held that the parent was not immune to the suit for negligence brought by child who was also not a minor but was self-supporting. Again, we see in Andersen v. Andersen a parent that is not immune to a suit for negligence brought by his child who is also self-supporting.
In Peepe v. Peepe the parent is immune even though the child is not a minor and the suit being brought was for negligence. The two elements for parent immunity that we know from the previous cases are; the child must be a minor and the child must sue for negligence. The element of self-supporting v. not self-supporting changes the rule we found in the previous cases. We can now add to the rule the exception that a parent may be immune in a suit brought by a child that is not a minor, for negligence IF the child is not self-supporting.
There are three relevant factors to determine whether defendant was in “immediate flight.” Those factors are the location of the defendant at the time that the murder took place and the length of time that had elapsed between the robbery and the murder. In case one the defendant was fifty miles from the other defendant when the murder took place, and the murder took place one day after the robbery. We can apply both factors of “immediate flight” to this case.
In case two is the defendants were together when the murder took place. Therefore, our factor for location of...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document