## Facts

- An 11-year-old child was injured in a motor vehicle accident in the District of Columbia while riding as a passenger in a car driven by her mother.
- The child, acting through her father as next friend, sued the mother for negligence, alleging the injuries were proximately caused by negligent driving.
- The mother moved for summary judgment, arguing the common-law doctrine of parental immunity barred negligence suits by an unemancipated minor against a parent.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the mother on parental-immunity grounds.
- On en banc review, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals considered whether to recognize parental immunity and, if not, what limiting standard should apply to parent-child tort claims.

## Issues

1. Whether District of Columbia law recognizes a doctrine of parental immunity barring an unemancipated minor’s negligence action against a parent.
2. If blanket parental immunity is rejected, what standard governs tort liability between parent and child, including suits arising from a parent’s negligent driving.

## Decision

- The court, sitting en banc, reversed the grant of summary judgment for the mother.
- The court declined to adopt a general doctrine of parental immunity in the District of Columbia.
- The court adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895G as the governing standard for parent-child tort liability.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings without applying a categorical parental-immunity bar.

## Legal Principles

- A parent is not immune from tort liability to a child solely because of the parent-child relationship.
- Parent-child tort claims are generally evaluated under ordinary tort principles rather than an absolute immunity rule.
- Courts may recognize limited protections for parental authority and discretion in matters closely tied to child-rearing (e.g., discipline, care, provision of necessities), but such protections are not a categorical bar to suit.
- Negligent operation of an automobile by a parent is treated as ordinary negligence conduct and is not insulated merely because the plaintiff is the parent’s child.

## Conclusion

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals rejected blanket parental immunity and adopted Restatement (Second) of Torts § 895G, permitting an unemancipated minor to pursue a negligence claim against a parent for injuries arising from the parent’s negligent driving, subject to narrow limits protecting genuine parental discretion in child-rearing.


Rousey v. Rousey, 528 A.2d 416 (D.C. 1987)