Court Opinion

ID: 9844207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:59:00.645315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:29.786887
License: Public Domain

McFADDEN, Justice.
Betty Rogers, the plaintiff-appellant, instituted this action under the provisions of I.C. § 49-14041 seeking damages for personal injuries arising out of a one-car accident which occurred on March 29, 1970, near Ashton, Idaho.
In her complaint, appellant alleged the following facts. She was a passenger in a car owned by the Yellowstone Park Company, the defendant-respondent, and operated by Peter Rogers, her husband who was employed by the respondent company. Respondent Yellowstone Park Company gave permission to her husband to operate the vehicle on this particular business related trip from San Francisco to Yellowstone Park, and agreed that appellant and her son, an infant, could accompany her husband on this trip. Defendant Peter Rogers drove the company car continuously on the trip, without rest or relief, except for brief stops. Appellant’s husband, while driving, dozed or fell asleep and the car left the highway. Appellant alleged her husband’s conduct constituted gross, wanton and reckless disregard of the lives of others and his negligent acts and omissions caused the accident and seriously injured her. She alleged she sustained medical and hospital expenses in the approximate amount of $4,200, and alleges future medical expenses for her injuries will be $10,000. She alleged damages for incidental expenses, loss of earnings and pain and suffering in the amount of $50,000.
Appellant, while naming both the Yellowstone Park Company and her husband as defendants in the action, obtained service of summons and complaint on the Yellowstone Park Company, but not on her husband. The respondent in its separate answer denied all allegations of the complaint, and alleged as affirmative defenses the following. Peter Rogers was not authorized to carry passengers in the company vehicle; a necessary party, i. e., Peter Rogers, was not joined as a party plaintiff; any recovery by appellant would be community property for herself and her husband, and that her husband was an in*16dispensable party plaintiff. Respondent by way of cross-claim against Peter Rogers alleged it was entitled to indemnification from him for any sums it might have to pay appellant by reason of this action.2
Respondent filed its motion for summary judgment, contending that a wife living and cohabitating with her husband cannot recover from her husband’s employer for the husband’s negligent acts, since any recovery by the wife would be community property which would inure to the benefit of the husband tortfeasor. The motion for summary judgment was based on a deposition of appellant taken by respondent, certain answers to interrogatories, admissions, and affidavits. The trial court concluded that under the present interpretation of Idaho law, any recovery by appellant would be community property of herself and her husband, thus inuring to his benefit. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, from which judgment appellant has taken this appeal.
Presented for resolution by this court is the fundamental issue of whether the appellant wife may maintain an action for personal injuries against her husband and his employer for her husband’s negligence during the course and scope of the husband’s employment. Appellant relies heavily on the case of Lorang v. Hays, 69 Idaho 440, 209 P.2d 733 (1949), an action involving a tort committed by a husband on his wife, as authority that such an action may be maintained. Appellant has also cited cases from other community property jurisdictions where actions were allowed by one spouse against the other for negligent torts.
Respondent on the other hand, contends that any recovery by a wife, for damages such as are claimed in this action, is community property of herself and her spouse barring the action as held by the trial court.
Respondent points to a number of cases decided prior to Lorang v. Hays, supra, where this court held that damages for personal injuries to a spouse were community property. Giffen v. City of Lewiston, 6 Idaho 231, 55 P. 545 (1898); Lindsay v. Oregon Short Line RR Co., 13 Idaho 477, 90 P. 984 (1907); Labonte v. Davidson, 31 Idaho 644, 175 P. 588 (1918); Muir v. City of Pocatello, 36 Idaho 532, 212 P. 345 (1922); Sprouse v. Magee, 46 Idaho 622, 269 P. 993 (1928) [dictum]; Swager v. Peterson, 49 Idaho 785, 291 P. 1049 (1930). See also the following two cases decided subsequent to Lorang v. Hays, supra, Doggett v. Boiler Engineering & Supp. Co., 93 Idaho 888, 477 P.2d 511 (1970) [concerning survival of claims for personal injuries], and Clark v. Foster, 87 Idaho 134, 391 P.2d 853 (1964). In each of those cases a spouse instituted an action against a third party defendant without joining the husband as a party. Without exception, the court did not examine the nature of the interest damaged but assumed the recovery to be community property. None of these involved the issue of one spouse suing the other for damages arising out of the other’s negligence. The principal issue in those cases was whether the proper parties were before the court, and the court held that since the husband was the manager of the community property under I.C. § 32-9123 he was a necessary and proper party to bring an action belonging to the community.
Respondent in support of its position that the trial court acted properly in granting the summary judgment also refers to an annotation pertaining to actions by one spouse against another. Annot. 43 A.L.R.2d 632 (1955). However, appellant coun*17ters this citation, first pointing out the policy arguments set out in the annotation to the effect: (1) maintenance of an inter-spousal immunity rule is necessary for the preservation of domestic peace; (2) its abrogation would encourage litigation which, at least where a spouse is protected by insurance, might be collusive; and (3) any change in the rule should be for the legislature. Appellant contends these policy arguments are without merit and refers to Prosser, Law of Torts, § 122, p. 863 (4th ed., 1971), where the author states concerning such traditional arguments,
“Stress has been laid upon the danger of fictitious and fraudulent claims, on the very dubious assumption that a wife’s love for her husband is such that she is more likely to bring a false suit against him than a genuine one; and likewise the possibility of trivial actions for minor annoyances, which might well be taken care of by finding consent to all ordinary frictions of wedlock — or at least assumption of risk! The chief reason relied upon by all these courts, however, is that personal tort actions between husband and wife would disrupt and destroy the peace and harmony of the home, which is against the policy of the law. This is on the bald theory that after a husband has beaten his wife, there is a state of peace and harmony left to be disturbed; and that if she is sufficiently injured or angry to sue him for it, she will be soothed and deterred from reprisals by denying her the legal remedy — and this even though she has left him or divorced him for that very ground, and although the same courts refuse to find any disruption of domestic tranquility if she sues him for a tort to her property, or brings a criminal prosecution against him. If this reasoning appeals to the reader, let him by all means adopt it.” Prosser, Law of Torts, § 122, p. 863 (4th ed., 1971).
See also, Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692, 26 Cal.Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70 (1962).
Implicit in respondent’s argument is that the judicial system is inadequate to safeguard against collusion in tort actions between spouses. We reject this contention, for courts in this state presently weed out fraud and collusion in other cases not involving actions between spouses. We find nothing unusual or peculiar in inter-spousal suits to frustrate the capability of the judicial system to avoid or anticipate such abuses. See, Brooks v. Robinson, 284 N.E.2d 794 (Ind.1972). It is difficult to perceive how a personal action would disrupt the tranquility of the marital state to any greater degree than would actions in partition, ejectment or for contesting of wills, all of which actions now may be maintained by a wife against her husband when such actions involve her separate property. I.C. § 5-304; I.C. § 32-904. See, Salisbury v. Spofford, 22 Idaho 393, 126 P. 400 (1912), and Boggs v. Seawell, 35 Idaho 132, 205 P. 262 (1922), both being cases where a wife brought an action involving separate property without her husband being joined. It is the conclusion of the court that the policy arguments referred to by respondent in support of its position are fully answered by the quotation from Prosser quoted above.
Aside from a consideration of the nature of the right sought to be protected in this instant action, we find no valid reason for the retention of interspousal immunity in an action of this kind.
We now come to the critical issue concerning the nature of the interest which appellant by this action seeks to protect. If one relies on the cases previously cited by respondent involving tort claims against third party tort-feasors, it is clear that there is only one answer, i. e., appellant’s recovery for damages suffered in the automobile accident would be community property and this present action would be barred. However, without exception none of those cases considered the character of the right harmed for which the damages were sought.
*18Separate property is defined by statute to include:
“All property of either the husband or the wife owned by him or her before marriage, and that acquired afterward either by gift, bequest, devise or descent, or that which either he or she shall acquire with the proceeds of his or her separate property, by way of moneys or other property, shall remain his or her sole and separate property.” I.C. § 32-903.
Community property, on the other hand, includes
“All other property acquired after marriage by either husband or wife, including the rents and profits of the separate property of the husband and wife, is community property * * I.C. § 32-906.
The cases previously referred to herein cited by respondent relied on the concept that all property acquired during marriage was community property, and that any recovery for damages for personal injuries was “property acquired after marriage” but not acquired by “gift, bequest, devise or descent.” Hence, such recovery was community property. However, we believe the correct concept is first to consider the nature of the right or interest invaded or harmed by the negligence of a defendant, and based on a determination of the nature of this right, then to characterize the damages recovered in relation to the right violated. Thus, the character of any judgment in this type of case as separate or community would take its character from the nature of the right violated. See, McKay, Community Property, § 398, p. 286 (2d ed. 1925).
When a couple marry they bring to the marriage not only their property, but also themselves as individuals. While they enter into common bonds, still they are entitled to maintain certain individual rights. One of those rights is that of personal security and freedom from harm to one’s person from the spouse. Soto v. Vandeventer, 56 N.M. 483, 245 P.2d 826 (N.M.1952). Any physical injury to a spouse, and the pain and suffering therefrom is an injury to the spouse as an individual. Compensation by way of damages for such an injury would partake of the same character as that which has been injured or has suffered loss. See McKay, Community Property, § 398, p. 268 (2d ed., 1925); DeFuniak & Vaughn, Principles of Community Property, § 82, p. 201 (2d ed. 1971). Although not articulated in terms of personal security, nonetheless, in Lorang v. Hays, 69 Idaho 440, 209 P.2d 733 (1949), tais court recognized the right of a wife to maintain an action against her husband for a tort committed while the parties were married. Even though at the time the action was brought the parties had separated, this court stated
“We, therefore, conclude that a cause of action for damages to the person or character of a married woman, which accrue while she is living separate and apart from her husband, is ‘an accumulation,’ is her separate property; that the husband is not a necessary party plaintiff and is not entitled to any of the recovery. This rule is particularly applicable where the husband is himself the wrongdoer.” 69 Idaho at 446, 209 P.2d at 735.
Courts in other community property jurisdictions have similarly recognized the right of a spouse to maintain a tort action for a personal injury and to recover damages as separate property. In Soto v. Vanderventer, 56 N.M. 483, 245 P.2d 826, 832, 833 (N.M.1952), 35 A.L.R.2d 1190 (1954) [see, Annot. 35 A.L.R.2d 1199 (1954)], the New Mexico Supreme Court held:
“We are of the opinion that reason, justice and a fair interpretation of our community statute, construed either in light of the common or Spanish law, require that we hold the cause of action for the personal injury to the wife, and for the resultant pain and suffering, belongs to the wife, and that the judgment *19and its proceeds are her separate property. She brought her body to the marriage and on its dissolution is entitled to take it away; she is similarly entitled to compensation from one who has wrongfully violated her right to personal security.”
Flores v. Flores, 84 N.M. 601, 506 P.2d 345 (N.M.Ct.App.1973). See, Fredrickson & Watson Const. Co. v. Boyd, 60 Nev. 117, 102 P.2d 627 (1940); Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683, 26 Cal.Rptr. 97, 376 P.2d 65 (1962); Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692, 26 Cal.Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70 (1962); Freehe v. Freehe, 81 Wash.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 (1972).4 Cf., Windauer v. O’Connor, 13 Ariz.App. 442, 477 P.2d 561 (1970); Harkness v. Louisiana I. N. W. R. Co., 110 La. 822, 34 So. 791 (1903) ; Franco v. Graham, 470 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.Civ.App.1971). See, generally, Annot. Spouse’s cause of action for negligent personal injury as separate or community property, 35 A.L.R.2d 1199 (1954).
It is the conclusion of this court that the appellant is entitled to pursue her remedy for damages arising out of the alleged accident, notwithstanding that the tortfeasor was her husband and was named as a party defendant. See, Lorang v. Hays, supra, where this court stated:
“Construing our constitution and statutes as a whole, it seems to us plainly manifest that the legislative intent to remove the shackles of the common law rules as to rights of a married woman, under the circumstances presented here, is clearly apparent.
“In Idaho a married woman has a legal status of her own. She is not submerged in the identity of her husband.
“We are unable to perceive where public policy or society or the sacred relations of marriage are in anywise protected by denying a remedy open to all persons. We, therefore, conclude that under the facts alleged, the plaintiff has a right to maintain the action against her former husband even though the tort complained of was committed during coverture.” 69 Idaho at 448, 209 P.2d at 737.
One additional issue is presented by this appeal concerning what damages would be allowable to a spouse in an action such as this.
In Freehe v. Freehe, 81 Wash.2d 183, 500 P.2d 771 (1972), the Supreme Court of Washington held that a married woman could maintain an action for a personal injury caused by the negligence of her husband. Therein that court dealt with the issue of the scope and nature of damage recovery. That court stated:
“In more direct response, this argument mistakenly assumes that courts are incapable of fashioning a remedy appropriate to a newly recognized enforceable claim for relief. For the simple reason that no enforceable claim has heretofore been recognized in this area, none of our prior cases allocating personal injury recoveries can be said to be on point. That is, we are not here concerned with the established rule that recovery for injuries to a married person by a third party tort-feasor is community property. Nor does any statute expressly deal with the allocation of damages as between the spouses in such an action. In these circumstances, it is for the court to fashion an appropriate remedy. We think that justice would best be served in these cases by a rule that compensates the injured spouse without unduly benefitting the tort-feasor spouse. See discussion 38 Wash.L.Rev. 374-379 (1963). We think *20that these dual considerations are best served by the following formula: (1) Special damages, including established future specials, are recoverable by the community. These are actual, out of pocket expenses which are a community liability. The fact that the tort-feasor spouse is thereby spared his or' her community share of these expenses is, we think, outweighed by the facts that these damages are strictly compensatory in nature, inuring directly to the benefit of the injured spouse, and that any reduction in the damages recoverable would most directly and harmfully affect the injured spouse. (2) General damages for loss of future earnings which would have constituted community property are recoverable in the fraction of one half, by the injured spouse, as his or her separate property. (3) General damages compensating for pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc., are fully recoverable and are the separate property of the injured spouse.” 500 P.2d at 776, 777.5
It is our conclusion that the Washington Supreme Court has established a workable rule concerning damages in this type of case, an action for personal injuries sustained by the wife. Therefore it is the conclusion of this court that appellant in this action is entitled to pursue her remedy for damages arising out of the accident alleged notwithstanding that she has named her husband as a party defendant. Appellant seeks recovery of special damages, including established future specials. She also seeks general damages for loss of future earnings, and also general damages as compensation for pain and suffering. Appellant is entitled to recover her special damage, including established future specials, as these are actual out of pocket expenses which are a community liability. And the fact her spouse would be relieved of this financial burden is outweighed by the fact such damages are strictly compensatory in nature inuring to the benefit of the injured spouse. General damages for loss of future earnings which would be community property would be recoverable only in the fraction of one-half as the separate property of the injured spouse, and general damages for pain and suffering and emotional distress would be fully recoverable as the injured spouse’s separate property.
The summary judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion. Costs to appellant.
DONALDSON and McQUADE, JJ., concur.

. “49-1404. Owner’s tort liability for negligence of another — Subrogation.—1. Responsibility of owner for negligent operation by person using vehicle with permission — Imputation of negligence. Every owner of a motor vehicle is liable and responsible for the death of or injury to a person or property resulting from negligence in the operation of such motor vehicle, in the business of such owner or otherwise, by any person using or operating the same with the permission, expressed or implied, of such owner, and the negligence of such person shall be imputed to the owner for all purposes of civil damages.
«2. * a: *
“3. Operator to be made party defendant — • Recourse to operator’s property. In any action against an owner on account of imputed negligence as imposed by this section the operator of said vehicle whose negligence is imputed to the owner shall be made a party defendant if personal service of process can be had upon said operator within this state. Upon recovery of judgment, recourse shall first be had against the property of said operator so served.”
«4 * * *>>

. No issue regarding the Idaho Guest Statute, I.O. § 49-1401, was presented, nor do the parties contend that the law of any other jurisdiction is involved.

. I.O. § 32-912 has been amended by 1974 S.L., Oh. 194, to provide for both spouses to have equal management and control of community property except that neither spouse may sell or convey community real property unless both join the conveyance nor may either spouse incur community debts and obligate the other’s separate property without the other’s written consent.

. In Self v. Self, supra, the Supreme Court of California allowed a recovery by a wife for an intentional tort inflicted upon her by her husband, overruling two previous cases. To a certain extent that court relied upon legislative enactments. In Klein v. Klein, supra, the Supreme Court of California allowed a recovery by a wife against her husband for a negligent tort, as opposed to an intentional tort as in Self v. Self, supra. Idaho in Lorang v. Hays, supra, reached the same conclusion concerning intentional torts as the California court but did not have to rely on a special statute.

. See, Soto v. Vandeventer, 56 N.M. 483, 245 P.2d 826, 832, 833 (N.M.1952) ; Flores v. Flores, 84 N.M. 601, 506 P.2d 345 (N.M.Ct.App.1973). See also, Fredrickson & Watson Const. Co. v. Boyd, 60 Nev. 117, 102 P.2d 627 (1940) ; Self v. Self, 58 Cal.2d 683, 26 Cal. Rptr. 97, 376 P.2d 65 (1962) ; Klein v. Klein, 58 Cal.2d 692, 26 Cal.Rptr. 102, 376 P.2d 70 (1962). Cf., Windauer v. O’Connor, 13 Ariz.App. 442, 477 P.2d 561 (1970) ; Harkness v. Louisiana I. N. W. R. Co., 110 La. 822, 34 So. 791 (1903) ; Franco v. Graham, 470 S.W.2d 429 (Tex.CivApp.1971).