Also known as: interspousal immunity · spousal immunity · marital immunity
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
2 senses
A common-law bar that prevented one spouse from recovering damages from the other for personal injuries. The doctrine rested on the view that lawsuits between spouses would disrupt marital harmony and invade family privacy.
A common-law bar that prevented one spouse from recovering damages from the other for personal injuries. The doctrine rested on the view that lawsuits between spouses would disrupt marital harmony and invade family privacy.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A privilege that shields a married person from being compelled to give adverse testimony against a spouse in a criminal prosecution. The privilege exists only while a valid marriage is in force and may reach events that occurred before the marriage.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
A privilege that shields a married person from being compelled to give adverse testimony against a spouse in a criminal prosecution. The privilege exists only while a valid marriage is in force and may reach events that occurred before the marriage.
Each sense below has its own examples, sources, and questions.
Ira Irving is injured when his wife Iris negligently crashes their car. Ira files a personal-injury action against Iris in a jurisdiction that still recognizes inter-spousal immunity. The court dismisses the complaint because the common-law doctrine continues to block one spouse from suing the other for negligence.
Iain Irons strikes his spouse Iris during an argument, causing serious injury. Iris sues for battery in a state that has abolished inter-spousal immunity for intentional torts. The court allows the action to proceed because the former bar no longer shields spouses from intentional-harm claims.
Over half the states have abolished the doctrine entirely, and many others have abolished it for intentional torts or automobile accidents.
Supporting sources
Ike Ingram is on trial in federal court for embezzlement. Prosecutors subpoena his wife Isabella to describe conversations she overheard before their marriage. Isabella states she is willing to testify. Because the privilege belongs solely to the witness spouse in federal court, the judge permits Isabella to take the stand over Ike's objection.
Ismael Ibrahim faces state manslaughter charges. His wife Iris, still legally married to him, is subpoenaed to recount statements he made before their wedding. Iris wants to testify, but Ismael objects. Under the state rule that vests the privilege in the defendant spouse, the court sustains the objection and bars Iris from testifying.
The witness spouse alone holds the privilege. That spouse may refuse to testify but may also choose to testify even if the defendant spouse objects.
Supporting sources
Yes. The privilege may be invoked as to matters that happened before the marriage provided a valid marriage exists when testimony is sought.
Supporting sources
Yes. In most state courts the defendant spouse holds the privilege and may prevent the witness spouse from testifying even if the witness wishes to cooperate.
Supporting sources
…for loss of consortium ( Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., supra, 12 Cal.3d at pp. 389-404); and abrogated the rule of interspousal immunity for negligent torts. ( Klein v. Klein (1962) 58 Cal.2d 692, 697-699 [26 Cal. Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70].) Every one of these landmark decisions required a difficult choice among competing…