dissenting.
I concur in the dissent by Justice Stephens to the extent that it would reinstate the doctrine of parental immunity. However, I would go further in this case and hold that the father should have been given a directed verdict. I do not understand the reasoning that fits the factual situation here into the doctrine stated in section 323, Restatement of the Law of Torts, 2d. In my opinion the doctrine does not apply and there is no showing of any breach of duty on the part of the father.
The holding in the majority opinion that an exercise of parental authority simply involves acts of disciplining a child is not realistic and is a real trouble maker for the future.
Accordingly I dissent and would affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.