Streenz v. Streenz

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Streenz v. Streenz

461 P.2d 186, 11 Ariz. App. 10

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona

DecidedJanuary 13, 1970

Docket1 CA-CIV 863

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 461 P.2d 186 (Streenz v. Streenz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Streenz v. Streenz, 461 P.2d 186, 11 Ariz. App. 10 (Ark. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinions

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

Sharon Streenz, by her guardian ad litem, sued . her parents, defendants-appellees James and Ramona Streenz, for damages sustained from an automobile accident. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted and plaintiff appeals.

Construing the' facts in plaintiff’s favor, they are as follows. Sharon/ an unemancipated minor,, was a passenger in a car ’.driven b'y her :mother. Mrs. Streenz was blinded by the sun, lost control of the-car, and drove off the road into a-tree. The car was a total wreck, and plaintif-f suffered injury to her knees-because. o,f trauma.- ... The main, issue on appeal is .whether the doctrine of. parental, immunity 'applies in this [11]*11case. Plaintiff, in particular, contends that the doctrine only applies in cases involving the exercise of parental control and discipline and that since there is none in this case, summary judgment was error.

Both parties concede that the recent case of Purcell v. Frazer, 7 Ariz.App. 5, 435 P.2d 736 (1969), decided by Division Two of this court, held the parental immunity doctrine applicable to a virtually identical fact situation. In Purcell, three minor children were injured when the car in which they were riding, driven by their father, was involved in a serious accident. The court, speaking through Judge Molloy, held that the doctrine of parental immunity applied in Arizona, a decision in accord with the weight of authority and based on sound reasoning.

It is also noted that Supreme Court review was denied in Purcell, and no significant new argument has been advanced here that was not presented in Purcell.

We believe that this division sits not as an independent division, being part of a single court, and that we should not disagree with our own decisions or those of the other division unless presented with the most cogent of reasons. Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Henson, 2 Ariz.App. 59, 406 P.2d 409 (1965). We find no compelling reason to disagree. The trial court was therefore correct in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

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

KRUCKER, Chief Judge.

Sharon Streenz, by her guardian ad litem, sued . her parents, defendants-appellees James and Ramona Streenz, for damages sustained from an automobile accident. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted and plaintiff appeals.

Construing the' facts in plaintiff’s favor, they are as follows. Sharon/ an unemancipated minor,, was a passenger in a car ’.driven b'y her :mother. Mrs. Streenz was blinded by the sun, lost control of the-car, and drove off the road into a-tree. The car was a total wreck, and plaintif-f suffered injury to her knees-because. o,f trauma.- ... The main, issue on appeal is .whether the doctrine of. parental, immunity 'applies in this [11]*11case. Plaintiff, in particular, contends that the doctrine only applies in cases involving the exercise of parental control and discipline and that since there is none in this case, summary judgment was error.

Both parties concede that the recent case of Purcell v. Frazer, 7 Ariz.App. 5, 435 P.2d 736 (1969), decided by Division Two of this court, held the parental immunity doctrine applicable to a virtually identical fact situation. In Purcell, three minor children were injured when the car in which they were riding, driven by their father, was involved in a serious accident. The court, speaking through Judge Molloy, held that the doctrine of parental immunity applied in Arizona, a decision in accord with the weight of authority and based on sound reasoning.

It is also noted that Supreme Court review was denied in Purcell, and no significant new argument has been advanced here that was not presented in Purcell.

We believe that this division sits not as an independent division, being part of a single court, and that we should not disagree with our own decisions or those of the other division unless presented with the most cogent of reasons. Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Henson, 2 Ariz.App. 59, 406 P.2d 409 (1965). We find no compelling reason to disagree. The trial court was therefore correct in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

461 P.2d 186, 11 Ariz. App. 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/streenz-v-streenz-arizctapp-1970.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack