Court Opinion

ID: 9681898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:00:45.139888+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:36.460056
License: Public Domain

*485SIMS, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The opinion is so far reaching and is so contrary to my view of the law that I feel impelled to write this dissent.
The majority opinion, as well as the opinion of the learned trial judge, is exceedingly well written, and the only criticism I have is that the conclusion reached is wrong. To the credit of the author of the majority opinion, ‘he has given every argument which could be raised against tbe affirmance of the trial judge, thus he has in reality written this dissent.
One reading the opinion of the majority can readily understand the reason for this dissent is that to permit one spouse to sue the other for a tort produces these undesirable results: 1. It brings about domestic discord; 2. it encourages raids on insurance companies through unmeritorious claims which would never be instituted where the husband did not carry liability insurance, thus possibly raising insurance rates on thousands of honest persons for the benefit of the fraudulent few; 3. it adopts the minority rule and aligns this court on the side which is against the great weight of authority in the nation; 4. it necessitates the overruling of two cases, one of long standing and the other of comparatively recent date.
To my mind neither the Married Woman’s Act, KRS 404.020, nor § 34 of the Civil Code of Practice authorizes the wife to sue her husband for his neligence— neither spouse was authorized at common law to sue the other for negligence.
For the reasons given, I respectfully dissent, and am authorized to state that Judge STEWART joins me.