Guterman v. Guterman

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Guterman v. Guterman

328 A.2d 233, 66 N.J. 69, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 138

CourtSupreme Court of New Jersey

DecidedNovember 20, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 328 A.2d 233 (Guterman v. Guterman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guterman v. Guterman, 328 A.2d 233, 66 N.J. 69, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 138 (N.J. 1974).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

On July IS, 1970 plaintiffs Isaac and Eva Guterman were passengers in au automobile operated by their unemancipated minor son, defendant-appellant, Stuart Guterman. Allegedly because of Stuart’s negligence the vehicle left the road. In his parents’ consolidated actions for personal injuries and related damages resulting from that accident, Stuart’s motion for summary judgment, apparently on the pleadings, was denied on the basis of this Court’s opininion in France v. A.P.A. Transport Corp., 56 N. J. 500 (1970). The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal. We granted defendant’s motion for certification of the appeal pending unheard in the Appellate Division, R. 2:12-2.

[71]*71The sole question raised is whether, in suits for personal injuries based on negligent vehicular operation, France v. A.P.A. Transport Corp., supra, allows only actions by an unemancipated child against his parent, or whether that decision was intended to and by its own terms did include actions brought by a parent against his unemancipated child.

Clearly it is the latter, as the trial judge here held. Justice Proctor said in France:

Our decision today goes no further than allowing suits between unemaneipated children and their parents for injuries suffered as a result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. [Id. at 507 (emphasis added)].

While in that landmark case the liability sought to be established was that of a parent to his unemancipated minor child, nothing in the opinion suggests that its principle was not intended to embrace actions by the parent against the child. To the extent that Di Martino v. Ventrella, 123 N. J. Super. 128 (Law Div. 1973) stands as authority to the contrary, it is in error and is expressly overruled.

Affirmed.

Clieeokd, J., concurring in result.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Clieeokd and P ashman, and Judge Coneokd — 6.

For reversal — None.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

On July IS, 1970 plaintiffs Isaac and Eva Guterman were passengers in au automobile operated by their unemancipated minor son, defendant-appellant, Stuart Guterman. Allegedly because of Stuart’s negligence the vehicle left the road. In his parents’ consolidated actions for personal injuries and related damages resulting from that accident, Stuart’s motion for summary judgment, apparently on the pleadings, was denied on the basis of this Court’s opininion in France v. A.P.A. Transport Corp., 56 N. J. 500 (1970). The Appellate Division granted leave to appeal. We granted defendant’s motion for certification of the appeal pending unheard in the Appellate Division, R. 2:12-2.

[71]*71The sole question raised is whether, in suits for personal injuries based on negligent vehicular operation, France v. A.P.A. Transport Corp., supra, allows only actions by an unemancipated child against his parent, or whether that decision was intended to and by its own terms did include actions brought by a parent against his unemancipated child.

Clearly it is the latter, as the trial judge here held. Justice Proctor said in France:

Our decision today goes no further than allowing suits between unemaneipated children and their parents for injuries suffered as a result of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. [Id. at 507 (emphasis added)].

While in that landmark case the liability sought to be established was that of a parent to his unemancipated minor child, nothing in the opinion suggests that its principle was not intended to embrace actions by the parent against the child. To the extent that Di Martino v. Ventrella, 123 N. J. Super. 128 (Law Div. 1973) stands as authority to the contrary, it is in error and is expressly overruled.

Affirmed.

Clieeokd, J., concurring in result.

For affirmance — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Jacobs, Mountain, Sullivan, Clieeokd and P ashman, and Judge Coneokd — 6.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

328 A.2d 233, 66 N.J. 69, 1974 N.J. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guterman-v-guterman-nj-1974.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack