Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortdamagesappealmotioncommon law
tortdefendantcommon law

Related Cases

Broussard v. United States, 52 F.4th 227
View Case »
Rains v. Bend of the River, 124 S.W.3d 580
View Case »
Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal.4th 1113, 302 P.3d 211, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 21, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6387, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7973
View Case »
McHaffie By and Through McHaffie v. Bunch, 891 S.W.2d 822
View Case »
Irwin v. Ashurst, 158 Or. 61, 74 P.2d 1127
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mahnke v. Moore, 197 Md. 61, 77 A.2d 923

Facts

Marilyn Marie Mahnke, born on May 15, 1945, was the illegitimate daughter of Russell C. Moore and Marjorie Mae Mahnke. Prior to January 1, 1950, her parents lived together, but due to her father's cruel behavior, her mother left him. They returned in March 1950, whereupon her father shot her mother in Marilyn's presence and later committed suicide, causing Marilyn to suffer severe emotional and physical injuries.

She claims that as a result of her father's acts and the conditions thereby created to which she was subjected, she has suffered shock, mental anguish and permanent nervous and physical injuries.

Issue

Can an illegitimate child maintain an action in tort for personal injuries resulting from the acts of her father?

The question here presented is whether the illegitimate child can maintain an action in tort for personal injuries resulting from the acts of her father.

Rule

The common law traditionally provided parents with immunity from tort actions brought by their children, but this immunity does not apply when the parent commits acts that show a complete abandonment of the parental relationship.

However, there is nothing in the English decisions to suggest that at common law a child could not sue a parent for a personal tort.

Analysis

The court analyzed the historical context of parental immunity and determined that the extreme acts committed by the father, including murder and suicide, constituted a complete abandonment of the parental relationship. Therefore, the rationale for parental immunity did not apply, allowing the child to pursue a tort claim against the father's estate.

In considering this case we are treating the father as if he were a legitimate parent and are holding that he has no immunity from this suit.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, affirming that the child had a right to sue for the injuries caused by her father's actions.

As we hold that the child in this case has a right of action, we must reverse the judgment entered in favor of defendant and remand the case for further proceedings.

Who won?

Marilyn Marie Mahnke prevailed in the case because the court recognized her right to seek damages for the severe emotional and physical injuries inflicted by her father's actions.

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

You must be