Streenz v. Streenz
Cited by
- Sandoval v. Sandoval 623 P.2d 800 Ariz. 1981
- Streenz v. Streenz 471 P.2d 282 Ariz. 1970
- Barbone v. Superior Court of Pima County 462 P.2d 845 Ariz. Ct. App. 1969
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- Balts v. Balts 142 N.W.2d 66
- Purcell v. Frazer 435 P.2d 736
- Neil B. McGinnis Equipment Co. v. Henson 406 P.2d 409
- Briere v. Briere 224 A.2d 588
- Dunlap v. Dunlap 150 A. 905
Opinion text
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 case. 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.