Case Name: Armin Maag, Respondent, v. Nick Voykovich et al., Appellants
Court: Washington Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Washington
Decision Date: 1955-03-11
Citations: 46 Wash. 2d 302
Docket Number: No. 33000
Parties: Armin Maag, Respondent, v. Nick Voykovich et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Washington Reports
Volume: 46
Pages: 302–307

Head Matter:
[No. 33000.
Department Two.
March 11, 1955.]
Armin Maag, Respondent, v. Nick Voykovich et al., Appellants.
Wright, Booth & Beresford, for appellants.
T. C. Boyle and Chester A. Lesh, for respondent.
Reported in 280 P. (2d) 680.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
A jury in a King county superior court brought in a verdict for two thousand dollars for the plaintiff Armin Maag for injuries sustained in consequence of an assault by Nick Voykovich at King Cove, Alaska.
The trial court decided as a matter of law that if Voykovich was liable, it was a community obligation, and the judgment was entered against Nick Voykovich (individually), and against Nick Voykovich and Eugenia N. Voykovich as a marital community. There was no appeal from the judgment against Nick Voykovich, but the Voyko viches appealed from the judgment against them as members of a marital community.
We shall assume that the trial court was correct in concluding as a matter of law that the judgment was a community obligation or, rather, that it would have been if the assault had been committed in the state of Washington. However, the tortious conduct of Voykovich occurred in Alaska. It is stipulated that a marital community is not known or recognized under the laws of the territory of Alaska, and that the rights, duties, and responsibilities of a husband and wife under the laws of that territory were and are measured, defined, and provided by the common law.
The law of the place where a tort is committed controls the questions in connection with the act, the responsibility therefor, and the nature of a cause of action based thereon. Richardson v. Pacific Power & Light Co. (1941), 11 Wn. (2d) 288, 118 P. (2d) 985; Mountain v. Price (1944), 20 Wn. (2d) 129, 146 P. (2d) 327.
It is undisputed that, under the common law in Alaska, the judgment would be against Nick Voykovich personally for the assault that he had committed, and that no judgment could be had against Mrs. Voykovich personally therefor. That would also be the result in Washington. In Alaska, however, there could be no judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Voykovich as members of a marital community because there is no such status as membership in a marital community in that territory. In Washington, under the situation as we have assumed it to be, there could be a judgment against Mr. and Mrs. Voykovich as members of a marital community.
Under our holdings, the law applicable in Alaska having been pleaded and stipulated, there can be no judgment binding on the marital community in Washington for a tort committed in Alaska under circumstances where Nick Voykovich alone would be liable. See Mountain v. Price, supra.
The following are contract and not tort cases, but their reasoning likewise leads to the same result. La Selle v. Woolery (1896), 14 Wash. 70, 44 Pac. 115; Clark v. Eltinge (1902), 29 Wash. 215, 69 Pac. 736; Clark v. Eltinge (1904), 34 Wash. 323, 75 Pac. 866; Huyvaerts v. Roedtz (1919), 105 Wash. 657, 178 Pac. 801; Curtis v. Hickenbottom (1930), 158 Wash. 198, 290 Pac. 822; First Nat. Bank of Juneau v. Estus (1936), 185 Wash. 174, 52 P. (2d) 1243; Meng v. Security State Bank of Woodland (1943), 16 Wn. (2d) 215, 133 P. (2d) 293; Achilles v. Hoopes (1952), 40 Wn. (2d) 664, 245 P. (2d) 1005.
The trial court erred in entering judgment against the Voykoviches as members of a marital community.
The portion of-the judgment appealed from is reversed, and the words "and the marital community consisting of defendants Nick Voykovich and Eugenia N. Voykovich his wife" will be deleted from the judgment.