abrogating the absolute defense of interspousal immunity in actions for tort only after legislature declined to do so upon invitation by the court in deference to traditional legislative determination of significant considerations of public policy
How later courts described this case
- abrogating the absolute defense of interspousal immunity in actions for tort only after legislature declined to do so upon invitation by the court in deference to traditional legislative determination of significant considerations of public policy
- "the social gain of providing tangible financial protection for those whom an insured wrongdoer ordinarily has the most natural motive to protect transcends the more intangible social loss of impairing the integrity of the family relationship"
- court can reinstate interspousal immunity if experience establishes its necessity
- “We hold that the absolute defense of interspousal immunity in actions for tort is abrogated prospectively, as to all causes of action arising after this date, and is abrogated as to the instant cases.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Sheran, Justice
(dissenting).
Litigation by one spouse against another where recovery de *374 pends on proof of fault has always been considered contrary to the public policy of the state. In my judgment, the rule forbidding such law suits is based on reasons as sound today as when the prohibition was first announced. The fact that a liability insurance company may be required to pay the bill once fault is proved does not change the situation, in my view.
Mr. Justice Rogosheske took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.