Torts II, Pages 662–665
Freehe v. Freehe
Supreme Court of Washington, 1972
View opinion on Lexis AdvanceFacts:
Plaintiff sued his wife for negligently maintaining a tractor. All of her farming was completely separate from plaintiff, and he had no interest in it.
Procedural History:
Trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment based on interspousal tort immunity.
Issue:
Does interspousal immunity protect defendant?
Reasoning:
Interspousal immunity has three bases:
- Unity of marriage
- Traditionally, the Biblical principle of a man and woman becoming one has been followed, although distorted into the man being the one and the woman becoming his chattel.
- In such a modern society, such an outdated concept is not applicable.
- Preservation of peace and tranquility
- Spouses should manage their own peace and tranquility. If they really had peace and tranquility, one would not be suing the other.
- Sufficiency of criminal and divorce laws
- Criminal and divorce laws do not compensate for torts.
Rule/Holding:
The rule of interspousal immunity in personal injury cases is abandoned.
Judgment:
Reversed and remanded.