Case Title: Deatherage v. Deatherage

Citation: 328 S.W.2d 624

Docket Number: 

State: missouri

Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Date: 1959-11-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
328 S.W.2d 624 (1959)
Frances DEATHERAGE, Appellant,
v.
Henry DEATHERAGE, Respondent.
No. 46917.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.
November 9, 1959.
Albert Thomson, Al Lebrecht, Rodger J. Walsh, Tom J. Helms, Kansas City, for appellant.
Davis, Thomson, Vandyke & Fairchild, Kansas City, of counsel.
Sam Mandell, Kansas City, for respondent. Popham, Thompson, Popham, Mandell & Trusty, Kansas City, of counsel.
COIL, Commissioner.
Appellant, the plaintiff below, brought an action against her husband seeking $25,000 as damages for alleged personal injuries which she averred she sustained as a result of her husband's negligence, while they were husband and wife, in the operation of an automobile in which she was a passenger.
*625 The trial court dismissed plaintiff's petition on the ground that the wife could not maintain an action against her husband for a personal tort committed during the marriage. Plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of dismissal.
The question presented on this appeal has been answered by the court en banc in Brawner v. Brawner, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 808, 810. The question there was "whether a husband can maintain a civil action for damages against his wife for personal injuries resulting from negligent acts committed by the wife during the marriage." The court en banc, the chief justice dissenting, said:
The only difference in this and the Brawner case is that here a wife sought to maintain the personal tort action against her husband, while in the Brawner case it was a husband against his wife. It is apparent from the portions of the opinion quoted above that the ruling of the Brawner case applies irrespective of which spouse is plaintiff. That case held that the "commonlaw rule of spousal immunity from suit for a personal tort" was and would remain the law of this state unless changed by the general assembly.
No reason is asserted by the instant appellant to support her contention that she may maintain this action which was not fully considered and ruled adversely to her by the court en banc in Brawner v. Brawner, supra.
The judgment is affirmed.
HOLMAN and HOUSER, CC., concur.
PER CURIAM.
The foregoing opinion by COIL, C., is adopted as the opinion of the court.
All concur.