explaining the prohibition of spouses from suing each other as resting on the reasoning that, because husband and wife are a single unit, allowing spouses to sue would be tantamount to party suing himself or herself
How later courts described this case
- explaining the prohibition of spouses from suing each other as resting on the reasoning that, because husband and wife are a single unit, allowing spouses to sue would be tantamount to party suing himself or herself
- holding that wife, claiming intentional tort by husband when he allegedly shot her, was not barred by inter-spousal immunity doctrine from bringing a tort action against husband
- Rule abrogated as to intentional torts
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BLACKMAR, Judge,
concurring.
I concur and write only to express astonishment that a judge who concurred in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983), would presume to deliver a lecture about waiting for the legislature.
Based on the assurances in S.A.V. v. K.G.V., 708 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. banc 1986) that the principal opinion does not foreclose further consideration of “unwanted kiss” and “rolling pin” cases, I join in the principal opinion.