Also known as:interspousal immunity · spousal immunity · marital immunity
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
2 senses
1
in tort law
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.
2
Sense 1
1
in tort law
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.
Examples2
Negligent Driving Suit Barred
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.
Sense 2
2
in criminal evidence
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.
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.
White v. White618 P.2d 921 (Okla.1980)
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.
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.
1 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
What happens to inter-spousal immunity in tort suits in most states today?
Over half the states have abolished the doctrine entirely, and many others have abolished it for intentional torts or automobile accidents.
Examples2
Federal Witness Choice
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.
State Party Control
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.
3 common questions
Students Frequently Ask...
Who holds the spousal-immunity privilege in federal criminal cases?
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
Does the privilege apply to events that occurred before the marriage?
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
Can a spouse block the other spouse's testimony in state court under the majority rule?
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
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…