Title: Kowaleski v. Kowaleski
Citation: 227 Or. 45, 361 P.2d 64
Docket Number: N/A
State: Oregon
Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court
Date: April 19, 1961

Reversed April 19, 1961.
*46 Milton O. Brown, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.
Roland F. Banks, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Mautz, Souther, Spaulding, Kinsey &amp; Williamson, Portland.
Before McALLISTER, Chief Justice, and ROSSMAN, PERRY, SLOAN and KING, Justices.
REVERSED.
ROSSMAN, J.
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Bernice Kowaleski, from a judgment which the circuit court entered in favor of the defendant, Antone Kowaleski, after it had sustained the defendant's motion for the entry of judgment on the pleadings. The motion was predicated upon this ground:
*47 The plaintiff's automobile which had been proceeding northerly on east 39th Street in Portland, had stopped before entering the intersection of 39th and east Burnside Streets. While it was standing there it was struck from the rear by the defendant's car which was also driving northerly. The operator of the defendant's car was the plaintiff's husband who was the defendant's employee. The complaint alleged negligence and based upon those averments sought damages for the injury which the plaintiff said she sustained. The answer, in addition to denying all charges of negligence, averred in part:
Plaintiff's counsel, with commendable desire for simplicity in the submission of the case on appeal, states:
In recent years several questions analogous to the one just quoted have been before this court. Cowgill v. Boock, 189 Or 282, 218 P2d 445, 19 ALR2d 405, held that the administratrix of the estate of a youth who lost his life in an automobile accident which also took the life of his father who was operating the death-dealing car could maintain an action against *48 the administrator of the father's estate upon charges that the double death was caused by conduct of an intentional or willful character. Apitz v. Dames, 205 Or 242, 287 P2d 585, which held that in this jurisdiction there no longer remains the legal unity of husband and wife that the common law had brought into being, ruled that a wife may sue her husband for an intentional tort. Wiebe v. Seely, Administrator, 215 Or 331, 335 P2d 379, held that where the liability of a principal for the tort of an agent is predicated upon the theory of respondeat superior it is unnecessary to join the husband as a defendant if he was the driver (agent) of the tortious vehicle. The decision stated:
We stress those last seven words, "upon the fact of the agent's negligence." Going on, the decision stated:
This court has not ruled in the past upon the precise question which this case presents. The decisions of the other courts which were confronted with it are diametrically opposed to each other. The defendant (respondent) relies on the following cases which hold that a wife may not sue her husband's employer for the husband's negligence: Maine v. James Maine &amp; Sons, 198 Ia 1278, 201 NW 20 (1924); Sachnoff v. Sachnoff, 131 Me 280, 161 A 669 (1932); Riegger v. Bruton Brewing Co., 178 Md 518, 16 A2d 99, 131 ALR 307; Emerson v. Western Seed &amp; Irrigation Co., 116 Neb 180, 216 NW 297 (1927); Raines v. Mercer, 165 Tenn 415, 55 SW2d 263 (1932); Baker v. Gaffney, (D.C.D.C.) 141 F.Supp 602 (1956). Maine v. James Maine &amp; Sons, supra, was the first and is the most frequently cited case in this series. There, the wife was a passenger when she was injured in the employer's automobile which was driven by her husband. It was held on two theories that the principal-employer was not liable. First, the rationale of Phillips v. Barnett, 1 QBD 436, was relied on to deny recovery. The rationale, since repudiated by Broom v. Morgan, 1 QB 597 (1953), was that according to the common law a husband and wife were one person. Phillips v. Barnett, supra, held that even after divorce the erstwhile wife could not sue her former husband for assault and battery committed during coverture.
The second theory of the Maine case was that:
1. The proposition that unless the servant is liable the master can not be liable is an over generalization and inaccurate statement of the law as will be noticed by reverting to our quotation from Wiebe v. Seely, supra. It means merely that if the principal is sought to be held liable on the theory of respondeat superior he is not answerable in damages unless the agent was negligent; the statement does not cover the situation when the agent is granted an immunity. Schubert v. Schubert Wagon Co., 223 App Div 502, 129 Misc 578, aff 249 NY 253, 164 NE 42, 64 ALR 293; Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co., 339 Mo 582, 98 SW2d 645 (1936); Webster v. Snyder, 103 Fla 1131, 138 So 755 (1932). The Arnett and Dunshee cases were cited for dictum in Maine. White v. International Text-book Co., supra, was an action for malicious prosecution and the jury found for the defendant-agent and against the company-principal. It was held that the verdict was contradictory and erroneous because the corporation acted only through its agent-defendant and could not be responsible if the agent were not culpable. Hobbs v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., supra, held that the principal was not liable on the basis of respondeat superior if the agent were not blameworthy. In these two cases cited in the Maine case the essential ingredient for liability of the principal is that the quality of the agent's act must be unlawful before the principal may be held accountable.
Emmons v. Southern Pacific Co., 97 Or 263, 191 P *51 333, is also relied on by the respondent (defendant) as support for his contention that a principal is liable on the doctrine of respondeat superior only if the agent is liable. This was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained when the plaintiff's automobile stalled on defendant's tracks and was hit by the defendant's train. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant but did not find either for or against the motorman of the train. Under those circumstances, it was held that the defendant was not liable in damages because the plaintiff did not prove the agent was negligent. This case, like White v. International Text-book Co. and Hobbs v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., was decided on the theory that an agent must be negligent before a principal is answerable for damages on the basis of respondeat superior.
Following the lead of Schubert v. Schubert Wagon Co., 249 NY 253, 164 NE 42, 64 ALR 293, which was written by Cardozo, C.J., many courts have held that a wife may recover from her husband's employer for the husband's negligence. These cases include: Webster v. Snyder, 103 Fla 1131, 138 So 755 (1932); Garnto v. Henson, 88 Ga App 320, 76 SE2d 636 (1953); Tallios v. Tallios, 345 Ill App 387, 103 NE2d 507 (1952); Broaddus v. Wilkenson, 281 Ky 601, 136 SW2d 1052 (1940); Pittsley v. David, 298 Mass 552, 11 NE2d 461; Miller v. Tyrholm &amp; Co., 196 Minn 438, 265 NW 324 (1936); McLaurin v. McLaurin Furniture Co., 166 Miss 180, 146 So 877 (1933); Mullally v. Langenberg Bros. Grain Co., 339 Mo 582, 98 SW2d 645 (1936); Hudson v. Gas Consumers' Ass'n., 123 NJL 252, 8 A2d 337 (1939); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Huff, 48 Ohio App 412, 194 NE 429, rev on other grounds 128 Ohio St. 469, 191 NE 761 (1934); Koontz v. Messer, 320 Pa 487, 181 A 792 (1935); *52 Poulin v. Graham, 102 Vt 307, 147 A 698 (1929); Hensel v. Hensel Yellow Cab Co., 209 Wis 489, 245 NW 159 (1932); Broom v. Morgan, 1 QB 597 (1953). In the Schubert case the wife was struck by the defendant's car which was being driven by her husband in the scope of his employment. In holding the employer responsible the court reasoned that vicarious liability is not based on the servant's liability but upon his unlawful act and that the husband's individual immunity does not extend to his principal. In Wiebe v. Seely, supra, this court took the same view. It was decided in the Schubert case that the employer was responsible when "the trespass is not justified, [and] he [the employer] is brought under a distinct and independent liability, a liability all his own. The statement sometimes made that it is derivative and secondary (Pangburn v. Buick Motor Co., supra), means this, and nothing more: That at times the fault of the actor will fix the quality of the act. Illegality established, liability ensues. * * *"
Wiebe v. Seely, supra, ruled upon the doctrine of respondeat superior similarly to the Schubert case. It was an action to recover damages for injuries sustained in an automobile accident. The defendants were the administrator of the estate of the driver and the driver's widow who owned the car which her husband was driving. The decision said:
This court's decision in Wiebe v. Seely quoted, as we saw, from § 217 Restatement of the Law, Agency. Restatement of the Law, 2nd, Agency, rephrases § 217. It now reads:
Comment b which accompanies § 217 states:
We pause to observe that the Restatement declares that such actions by the injured wife are not barred "in most states."
The English courts hold the employer liable for the husband's negligence toward his wife. In Broom v. Morgan, 1 QB 597 (1953), a wife sued her husband *54 and his employer to recover damages for injuries sustained when the wife fell though a trap door which her husband left open and unprotected. Denning, L.J., said:
2. Respondent suggests that this court is required by Smith v. Smith, 205 Or 286, 287 P2d 572, to deny *55 recovery in this case. There the wife sought to recover damages from her husband because of his alleged negligent operation of an automobile in which she was a passenger. It was held that the wife could not recover. The defendant (respondent) reasons that since Smith v. Smith is authority for the proposition that the wife in the case at bar has no cause of action against her husband she can not recover from his principal. Apitz v. Dames, 205 Or 242, 287 P2d 585, was a companion case of Smith v. Smith. The Apitz case was an action by the executor of the wife's estate against the administrator of the husband's estate to recover damages under the Oregon wrongful death act. The husband wrongfully killed his wife and then committed suicide. A demurrer was sustained to the complaint and the plaintiff appealed. This court held in that case, as we have seen, that a wife may sue her husband for intentional tort. It will be noticed that in both of those cases a tort had been committed against the wife but she was given no enforceable right in Smith v. Smith and thereby the husband in that case received immunity. The Apitz holding establishes the principle that a husband's exemption from suit for torts against his wife is not absolute. It must be recognized that neither of these cases directly governs the case at bar. In both the Smith and Apitz cases one spouse was directly suing the other; here the plaintiff is suing a third party. Even if these cases did control, it would not be desirable to extend the rule by construction. At the time Justice Cardozo wrote the Schubert opinion New York did not allow one spouse to sue the other for negligence. The court consisting of Justices Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg, O'Brien and Cardozo unanimously agreed that the inability of *56 a wife to sue her husband was not inconsistent with a wife recovering from her husband's employer for the husband's negligence. Other courts have reached the same conclusion.
3. It is not essential that an individual who was injured by an agent have recovered a judgment against the agent in order to hold the principal responsible. Wiebe v. Seely, supra; Southeastern Greyhound Lines v. McCafferty, 169 F2d 1, cert den 69 S Ct 136, 335 US 861, 93 L Ed 407; Camp v. Petroleum Carrier Corp., 204 SC 133, 28 SE2d 683; Fambro v. Sparks, 86 Ga App 726, 72 SE2d 473; Johns v. Hake, 15 Wash 2d 651, 131 P2d 933; Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Capolino, 65 NE2d 287. Johns v. Hake, supra, was an action by a husband and wife to recover damages for injuries incurred as a result of the negligence of the defendant's agent in the operation of a truck. The defendant's agent forced the plaintiff's car off the road and against the guard rail. Before the action was instituted the defendant's agent died. The defendant urged that the action abated at the agent's death and accordingly he was not liable on the basis of respondeat superior. The court ruled that the suit against the defendant did not abate because one may sue an agent or principal separately. We deem this a further reason why the cases which prevent one spouse from suing the other for negligence do not control this case.
Finally, respondent urges three policy reasons to prevent the wife's recovery. First, it is stated that there will be a disruption of the family unity and harmony. Historically, the husband and wife were considered a unit.
4. Justice BRAND in Smith v. Smith, supra, compiled a list of the Oregon statutes that changed this common law. He said that:
However, ORS 108.010 eliminated all civil disabilities from a wife which are not imposed on a husband and also confers on the wife all civil rights of the husband. The reviser's note of OCLA 63-202, which was the predecessor of ORS 108.010, states that the "reference to the wife's right to sue in her own name has been omitted as unnecessary in view of the broad *59 grant in the first part of that section." Reviser's Note, Oregon Revised Statutes 1953, p 795. Thus, it is seen that the wife has gradually acquired a separate legal identity and there is not a complete unity in law between the spouses.
A harmonious family is still the basis of our society, but the law does not champion this ideal above all other objectives. Oregon allows recovery for a willful tort by one spouse against the other, Apitz v. Dames, and a child against his parent, Cowgill v. Boock, 189 Or 282, 218 P2d 445. A wife may also testify against her husband in certain criminal cases. ORS 139.320; 167.115; 167.625. In these situations the harmony of the home is more likely to be disrupted than when a spouse sues her husband's employer. In the latter case the employer is the real party defendant and not the husband.
Professor McCurdy, in 43 Harv L Rev 1053, states:
5, 6. The second policy argument urged by the respondent is that there will be a diminution of the family wealth if a wife may sue her husband's employer for the husband's negligence. The theory is that a wife will recover from the employer and the recovery less costs goes into a common family fund. Then the employer is indemnified by the employee-husband; the net result is that the family has diminished the common fund by the cost of the two law suits. This hypothesis is not universally true because it does not cover the situation where there is no common fund, i.e., the husband and wife are separated or do not pool their individual resources. Moreover, the principal-employer does not have a right of indemnity from the agent-husband. The right to recover from the employee is based on the employee's independent duty to render faithful service to the employer. Schubert v. Schubert Wagon Co., supra; Hudson v. Gas Consumers' Ass'n, supra; Prosser, Torts, 2d ed 678, § 102. Finally, whether the employer will sue the employee is collateral to this case and is not before *61 the court. We can not presume that the principal will sue his agent.
7. The third policy argument is the fear of collusion between the spouses. Why collusion is more dreadful in this case than when a child sues a parent as in Cowgill v. Boock, supra, or one relative sues another is not apparent. Moreover, many factors which come readily to mind mitigate against collusion.
8. From the above analysis we conclude that a wife may sue her husband's employer for the husband's negligence. The husband's personal immunity should not extend to his employer. Maine v. James Maine &amp; Sons, supra, the leading case denying recovery, is based on a rationale that the march of progress has rejected. Moreover, it would be a sad reflection upon the courts if a group of people were injured in one accident by an employee and everyone injured could recover from the employer but the wife of the negligent employee. The fact that the wife was injured by her husband when he was on the business of his employer should not relieve the defendant-employer of his legal responsibility.
The challenged judgment is reversed.