Also known as:interspousal immunity · interspousal immunity doctrines · spousal immunity · husband-wife immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A common-law doctrine that barred one spouse from bringing a tort action against the other. The doctrine rested on the legal fiction of marital unity and was justified by the goals of preserving marital harmony and avoiding judicial interference in domestic affairs.
See Our Sources
How its tested
Common Examples
4
Negligence Suit Dismissed
Husband and Wife are married when Wife's careless driving injures Husband. Husband files a negligence action against Wife seeking damages. The court dismisses the suit because the interspousal immunity doctrine bars tort claims between spouses.
Intentional Tort Barred
Spouses are married when one spouse intentionally strikes the other during an argument. The injured spouse files a battery claim. The court dismisses the action because the interspousal immunity doctrine prevents one spouse from suing the other in tort.
Tort Suit Barred
Ike and Irene are married when Irene negligently injures Ike on their farm. Ike sues Irene for damages. The court dismisses the action because the interspousal immunity doctrine prevents one spouse from suing the other in tort.
In this personal injury action, plaintiff Marilyn S. White alleged that she was a passenger in a truck driven by defendant Robert W. White. They were traveling south on Interstate 35 near the city of Louisville, Texas, when the defendant lost control of his truck, overturning it and causing injury to her body.
The petition alleged that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by negligent acts of the defendant. He failed to keep a proper lookout for vehicles properly on the highway. He followed the vehicle in front of him too closely in violation of specific Texas statutes which were pleaded and attached. Robert White drove his vehicle into a space between the divided roadway and failed to keep his vehicle only upon the righthand roadway in violation of another specific Texas statute which was pleaded. He drove his vehicle at a speed that was greater than reasonable and prudent under the circumstances in violation of another specific Texas statute which was also pleaded and attached.
The plaintiff pleaded that as a result of said negligent actions she suffered broken bones and other injuries to the body resulting in permanent disability, medical expenses, and lost income with her damages totaling some $200,000.00.
The petition further alleged that at the time of the accident the defendants Robert W. White and Edward White were engaged in a joint venture or partnership operating a long-haul truck tractor-trailer. The plaintiff was employed by the defendants to help operate the truck. At the time of the accident she was within the scope of her employment. The defendants failed to carry Workmen’s Compensation Insurance, and that she has elected to proceed in the District Court.
Attached to the petition and made a part thereof was the Motor Carrier Bodily Injury and Property Damage Liability Certificate of Insurance. The Corporation Commission of Oklahoma certified that Employers Casualty Corporation had issued to Edward White of Fort Cobb, Oklahoma an insurance policy covering the obligations imposed upon the insured by the Oklahoma Motor Vehicle provisions. Employers Casualty Corporation is not a party to this appeal because the cause against it was dismissed without prejudice by the plaintiff.
In response to the petition the defendants Robert W. White and Edward White filed special demurrers. They demurred to the petition on the grounds that the plaintiff has no legal capacity to sue and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In arguing that the demurrers should be sustained both Robert and Edward White argued that the plaintiff Marilyn S. White lacks the capacity to sue because she is the wife of Robert W. White and under the laws of Texas one spouse may not bring a personal injury action against the other. This fact does not appear on the face of the petition. The defendants also argued that in fact the plaintiff was not their employee but was a co-employer. They relied upon facts which do not appear upon the face of the petition.
The trial court sustained the demurrers to the petition and dismissed the case with prejudice. The plaintiff appealed, and the matter came before the Supreme Court of Oklahoma for review.
Ira and Irene divorce after Irene's conduct during the marriage allegedly caused Ira emotional harm. Ira then files a tort suit against Irene. The court allows the action because the marriage has ended and the immunity no longer applies.
3 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
Does the interspousal immunity doctrine still bar tort suits between spouses in most jurisdictions?
Most jurisdictions have abolished the common-law doctrine that barred tort actions between husbands and wives. The doctrine rested on marital unity and was intended to promote harmony, but courts and legislatures have rejected it as outdated.
What policy rationales supported the interspousal immunity doctrine?
The doctrine was justified by the desire to preserve marital harmony and to keep courts out of private family matters. It prevented one spouse from suing the other for negligence or intentional torts.
Can a spouse sue the other for loss of consortium after the marriage ends?
Damages for loss of consortium are generally unavailable when the marriage terminates. Courts have refused to recognize claims such as wrongful divorce because of the difficulty of tracing causation to the dissolution.
47 Cal. 3d 654, 254 Cal. Rptr. 211, 765 P.2d 373
…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…