Case Name: Kimberly Parmenter PRICE, Appellant, v. Duane PRICE, Appellee
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1986-09-17
Citations: 718 S.W.2d 65
Docket Number: No. 04-85-00579-CV
Parties: Kimberly Parmenter PRICE, Appellant, v. Duane PRICE, Appellee.
Judges: Before CADENA, C.J., and BUTTS and CANTU, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 718
Pages: 65–71

Head Matter:
Kimberly Parmenter PRICE, Appellant, v. Duane PRICE, Appellee.
No. 04-85-00579-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, San Antonio.
Sept. 17, 1986.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 14, 1986.
Marvin B. Zimmerman, San Antonio, for appellant.
Timothy Patton, San Antonio, for appel-lee.
Before CADENA, C.J., and BUTTS and CANTU, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION
CADENA, Chief Justice.
Plaintiff, Kimberly Parmenter Price, appeals from a summary judgment denying her recovery from her husband, Duane Price, for personal injuries suffered by her prior to her marriage to defendant as a result of defendant's negligence. We reluctantly affirm.
Generally, the doctrine of interspousal immunity bars recovery for personal injuries suffered by one spouse as the result of the negligence of the other spouse. Bounds v. Caudle, 560 S.W.2d 925 (Texas 1977); Nickerson & Matson v. Nickerson, 65 Tex. 281 (1886). While our Supreme Court in Bounds held the doctrine inapplicable in cases of intentional tort, it is clear that it adopted, as did the Nickerson court, the theory that the immunity doctrine was based on a public policy aimed at the preservation of marital peace and harmony. 560 S.W.2d at 927. Although neither courts nor commentators have satisfactorily explained how denying relief to the injured spouse will promote harmony, we are constrained to follow the unambiguous, if indefensible, precedent set by Nickerson and Bounds.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.