7 Wis. 2d 130, 95 N.W.2d 814 (1959)
The plaintiff, Mrs. Haumschild, and her husband were domiciled in Wisconsin at all relevant times.1 Wisconsin is both the state of the forum and of the domicile while California is the state where the alleged wrong was committed.2 While the couple was traveling in California, Mrs. Haumschild sustained personal injuries in an automobile accident that was allegedly caused by her husband's negligence.3
She subsequently commenced an action in Wisconsin circuit court against her husband and Continental Casualty Company, his insurer, seeking damages for those injuries.4 The defendants asserted that California law barred a wife from suing her husband in tort and therefore precluded recovery.5 The circuit court rendered judgment against the plaintiff on that ground.6
The plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin.7 The appeal was argued before the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on March 2, 1959.8 On April 10, 1959, the court reversed the judgment in an opinion authored by Justice Currie, with Justice Fairchild filing a separate concurrence joined by Justice Brown.9
Whether the law of the state of the forum, the state of the place of wrong, or the state of domicile controls the question of interspousal immunity from tort liability?10
The law of the domicile controls the question of interspousal immunity from tort liability because such immunity presents an issue of family status rather than tort.11
Yes. The spouses involved in this litigation were domiciled in Wisconsin at all relevant times.12 An automobile accident occurred in California in which the wife sustained personal injuries.13 The wife brought suit in a Wisconsin court against her husband and Continental Casualty Company seeking damages for those injuries.14
The defendants asserted that California law barred a wife from suing her husband in tort.15 Because the parties were domiciled in Wisconsin when the suit was filed there, the domicile rule requires application of Wisconsin law permitting the action rather than California law barring it.16
The law of the domicile controls, permitting the wife to maintain the action under Wisconsin law.17
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Brown
Justice Fairchild concurred in the reversal but objected to overruling prior decisions in this case because the question had not been briefed or argued by the parties.18 He would have resolved the matter by noting that California itself treats immunity as a status issue governed by the law of the domicile, thereby reaching Wisconsin law without discarding settled precedent.19 He cautioned that the new domicile rule would require Wisconsin courts to determine domicile in many future cases involving temporary residents and might produce inconsistent results when other states' tort rules, such as guest statutes, are applied.20
Whether prior Wisconsin decisions applying the law of the place of injury to determine interspousal tort immunity should be overruled?21
Prior decisions should be overruled when the rule lies in an area where parties have not relied on it and a sounder rule advances public policy without sacrificing uniformity.22
Yes. The court expressly overruled Buckeye v. Buckeye and five subsequent cases.23 The discarded rule had produced illogical results by treating a family-law question as one of tort.24 No reliance interests were at stake in the conflict-of-laws setting.25
The spouses involved in this litigation were domiciled in Wisconsin at all relevant times. Application of the new rule produces a different outcome from the overruled precedents.26 The decision still respects the substantive rights of the parties under the law of the place of wrong for ordinary tort issues.27
The prior Wisconsin decisions are overruled and the domicile rule is adopted in their place.28