## Facts

- Four-year-old Heather Cates was injured in a motor-vehicle collision while riding as a passenger in a car driven by her father, Timothy Cates, during a visitation period.
- Heather, through her mother and next friend Nancy Cates Schmittling, brought a negligence action arising from the collision and later added Timothy Cates as a defendant.
- The amended pleading also asserted that Schmittling assigned to Heather her rights to recover medical expenses and related costs incurred on Heather’s behalf.
- Schmittling’s insurer, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., intervened as a subrogated party seeking reimbursement for uninsured-motorist benefits paid.
- Timothy Cates moved for summary judgment, arguing the parent-child tort immunity doctrine barred both Heather’s negligence claim and the insurer’s subrogation claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Timothy Cates based on parental immunity.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, concluding the doctrine should not bar automobile-negligence claims.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether the parent-child tort immunity doctrine bars a minor child’s negligence action against a parent for negligent operation of an automobile during visitation.
2. Whether the presence of automobile liability insurance affects application of parent-child tort immunity in an automobile-negligence case.
3. Whether parental immunity should be limited to conduct involving parental authority, discretion, or discipline rather than non-parental activities such as driving.

## Decision

- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s judgment reversing summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held that parent-child tort immunity does not bar a child’s claim alleging a parent’s negligent operation of a motor vehicle.
- The court rejected a blanket immunity rule in favor of limiting immunity to conduct tied to core parental functions.

## Legal Principles

- Parent-child tort immunity in Illinois does not apply to ordinary negligence arising from a parent’s operation of an automobile on public roadways.
- Immunity, if any, is confined to conduct that involves parental authority, discretion, or discipline and is closely connected to the parent-child relationship.
- In automobile-negligence suits, traditional immunity rationales (family harmony, parental authority, and collusion concerns) carry less force, particularly where liability insurance is the practical source of recovery.
- Courts should evaluate whether the challenged conduct is inherent in the parent-child relationship or merely incidental to it.

## Conclusion

Illinois permits a minor to sue a parent for injuries caused by the parent’s negligent driving; parental tort immunity is limited to actions closely connected to parental authority and discipline, and the case was remanded for adjudication on the merits.


Cates v. Cates, 156 Ill. 2d 76 (Ill. 1993)