concurring specially:
The majority refuses to speculate what limits, if any, should be placed on the doctrine of parental immunity. Instead, it timorously awaits another day to confront doctrinal change. I am convinced that the day *1371is today, and that limited abrogation is incongruous.
The Okla. Const. Art. 2 § 6 provides that the courts of justice of this state shall be open to every person and certain remedy afforded for every wrong and for every injury. The trend is toward the abolition of parental immunity;1 the logic and the letter of the law also lie in that direction. I am persuaded that the best interest of justice and fairness to all concerned is both legally and equitably satisfied by revocation of intra family immunity in all personal injury cases except those within the ambit of the exercise of parental authority and discretion.
I would overrule all inconsistent cases, and hold that a child may maintain a lawsuit against the parent for injuries suffered as the result of the alleged ordinary negligence of the parent with two exceptions, either the act involves: 1) an exercise of reasonable parental authority over the child, or 2) an exercise of reasonable parental discretion which concerns the provision of food, clothing, housing, medical and dental services and other care.2
I am authorized to state that Justice John B. Doolin concurs in the views expressed herein.
. See majority opinion, note 2.
. Goller v. White, 20 Wis.2d 402, 122 N.W.2d 193 (1965).